Your View

Montreal – Canadian policy should not discourage multiple citizenship. Indeed, Canada has been at the forefront of the global trend toward the recognition and acceptance of multiple citizenship and is a model for the rest of the world, according to a new study published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP).

“Multiple citizenship is here to stay. It reflects the growing diversity of our populations, as well as the changing nature of identity,” says author Audrey Macklin. “It may also be an asset for the country in terms of better understanding the world and being able to maintain strong trade and cultural links with numerous other countries.”

The study, “Multiple Citizenship, Identity and Entitlement in Canada,” which Macklin co-wrote with François Crépeau, examines recent instances of popular anxiety in Canada around multiple citizenship. It maintains that settler societies have operated on the rationale that immigrants will be more likely to naturalize and integrate into the Canadian mainstream if doing so doesn’t require severing connections to their past. “Multiple citizenship does not undermine Canadian citizenship and, as a matter of public policy and legal regulation, should not be restricted,” says Macklin.

According to the authors, changes made to the Citizenship Act in 2009 have indirectly struck at multiple citizenship by limiting the transmission of birthright by descent. “In practical terms, the law reduces the number of people who will be dual citizens by shrinking the category of people eligible to claim Canadian citizenship by descent,” notes Crépeau.

However, the authors support the amendment to the Citizenship Act included in the government bill tabled in the House of Commons on June 10, 2010, that makes it clear that candidates for naturalization must be physically present in Canada for three years before becoming Canadian citizens. They reject the proposal to impose a Canadian tax obligation on nonresident citizens solely on the basis of citizenship, and they are critical of discriminating against nonresident dual or multiple citizens in the context of consular assistance.

“Multiple Citizenship, Identity and Entitlement in Canada,” by Audrey Macklin and François Crépeau, can be downloaded free of charge from the Institute’s Web site (www.irpp.org).

A child is born abroad to Canadian born parents. At a young age that child returns to Canada with her parents. This child finishes her education in Canada, plays with her cousins and grandparents and learns to love this country. Given that this child’s parents were part of an internationally mobile workforce the likelihood of her going abroad herself to get experience is high. Most people would encourage it. Is this woman now less of a Canadian then anyone else in this country? I would think not. I would argue that she has demonstrated very clearly that she has significant ties to this country. Now, while abroad, if she has a child of her own will we deny her the right to pass on Canadian citizenship? I would hazard a guess that most people would say no. Her child is just as likely to move back to Canada and contribute in a significant way as her mother did.

This is a pattern that could continue for many generations. Child born abroad, returns to Canada with parents. Parents and child contribute to Canadian Society; child goes abroad and starts a family only to return with family to contribute as parents did.

Given the fact that more and more Canadians are seeking temporary work abroad, this scenario becomes more and more likely to occur each and every year. Why base right to pass on citizenship on place of birth? Why not base it on the ability to demonstrate ties to this country. The US and Australia do it. They have incorporated a residency provision so that citizens by descent can demonstrate significant ties. When they have a child of their own anywhere in the world, if they have satisfied that residency provision the fact that they were born abroad is not considered.

Canada should adopt a similar stance.

Comments?

In today’s globalized world in which goods, information and people can move across borders more extensively and freely than ever before to maintain international competitiveness, an outward-looking Canada must ensure its policies do not hinder outward-thinking Canadians participating in global business.

As a trading nation, Canada’s economy relies heavily on its international engagement. On average over the last five years, one fifth of Canada’s economic growth has been attributed to export growth. Total international trade in goods and services represented 70% of the Canadian GDP in the same period.

As a country of immigrants, Canada’s people-to-people links with the rest of world have been boosted to the highest level in several generations. This country welcomed close to 250,000 new permanent residents a year in the past five years, with over 57% of them economic immigrants. The 2006 Census enumerated six million foreign-born people in Canada. They accounted for virtually one in five (19.8%) of the total population, the highest proportion in 75 years.

It seems reasonable and logical to anticipate that Canada would become a more outward-looking nation, and therefore it is crucial for Canada to keep up its international presence rather than shutting its door to the outside world. But there is increasing evidences of a multiple-personality disorder when Canadians deal with issues emerging from a new globalized era.

On the one hand, Canada has developed a global commercial strategy to gain global advantage. The government has even identified 13 priority markets around the world where Canadian opportunities and interests have the greatest potential for growth. Canada’s international commercial network is being strengthened and currently encompasses over 900 Canadian Trade Commissioners active in over 150 cities worldwide.

On the immigration front, the door remains wide open even in the most severe global economic slowdown in many decades. Canada will stay the course on immigration in 2009, welcoming between 240,000 and 265,000 new permanent residents, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced.

Nevertheless, much evidence points to Canada moving in an opposite direction. Canada’s rank dropped from “B” or “C” in the 1970s and 1980s to the bottom group “D” in the 1990s and 2000s on the Outward FDI Performance Index – a measure developed by the Conference Board of Canada to capture a country’s relative success in investing globally.

While being an immigration country, Canada has neglected in many aspects the fact that human mobility takes place in two directions. There is increasing emigration from this country, mainly destined to the US or Asia. It is estimated as many as 2.7 million – or 7.5% of Canada’s population – are residing abroad.

Once a Canadian moves abroad, he or she is facing a mounting penalty for not being settled in this country. The person will lose Canadian health care coverage after six months of leaving the province where they used to live. They will not be allowed to vote in Canada’s elections after five years away from Canada. Some professional practice licences will be suspended depending on the rules applicable in their last province of residence and to the sector in which they practiced. Ultimately, their children or grandchildren will not be allowed to inherit Canadian citizenship if they continue living abroad according to a new law coming into effect on April 17, 2009.

Why are all these happening in a country which has the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that states clearly that every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada?

One argument suggests that as a privilege of citizenship, one should remain living in Canada to exercise their rights from and obligations to this country. Canadian legal experts will tell us if this settlement requirement has any support in accordance with existing Canadian laws. To me, this argument is perhaps one derived from the outdated 19th century sovereignty ideology. In a globalized age, a country like China, which used to tie its citizens with Hukou registration and prohibit people’s mobility across its border, has gradually liberated its control over people’s mobility rights. Should such a settlement argument prevail in a free country like Canada? I doubt it.

Another argument emphasizes the substantive attachment to Canada. In some eyes, not residing in Canada means no attachment to Canada, therefore, no Canadian citizenship.

What is attachment? Hopefully, we are not just talking about the outdated measures of settlement in Canada or the payment of Canadian taxes. In my view, the overseas Canadians’ attachment to Canada is best observed through their participation in various activities that connect to and matter for the nation of Canada, both domestically and internationally.

As the world changes under globalization and a technology revolution in transportation and communications, Canadians’ interactions with the rest of the world have accelerated dramatically. These revolutions now allow overseas Canadian citizens to participate in Canadian economic, political, social and civil activities in ways unimaginable or impossible in past generations.

A new study by Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada (forthcoming in May 2009) shows that overseas Canadian citizens do not reveal significant differences in many types of participation in domestic activities from their counterparts living in Canada; in other types of activities, overseas Canadian citizens do show a lack of participation – not because they don’t want to, but they cannot as a result of Canada’s current institutional barriers.

It can be concluded that a better policy change is to enhance the attachment rather than to cut off the links between Canada and its overseas citizens. An outward-looking Canada needs outward-thinking Canadians.
(K Zhang, Vancouver, BC)

• Comments from D. DeVoretz, Langley, BC, April 16, 2009
  
  It is logically written with some strong arguments about why Canadians should reassess their views on overseas Canadian citizens. However, I think you underestimate the current political dimensions of the current backlash against overseas Canadians.
  
  First the Canadian backlash is limited to naturalized Canadians living overseas and not native-born Canadians. In fact Canadians admire native-born Canadians on the international stage in sports, enterprise, entertainment and welcome them back with awards and tours. To that very important extent Canadians have been outward looking for at least 150 years beginning with the mass emigration from Quebec to northeast USA in 1880’s until today when Canadians honour all native-born Canadians on the world stage.
  
  So the central question is why do Canadians in Canada feel so differently about naturalized Canadians overseas today and why have some Canadians in Canada have become inward looking?
  
  Two core reasons explain this antipathy: fiscal anxieties and racism. For example, the asset reporting requirement on Canada’s tax form is one example of Canada’s concern with owning overseas assets even if there is nothing illegal about that. Canada wants to know everyone’s’ asset holdings to insure that as an overseas Canadian you to report any earnings from this asset if you are liable to Canadian taxation. Thus, the tension between Canada and its overseas population is almost exclusively driven by a concern for taxes which you dismiss when you suggest an “outdated measures of settlement (is about) the payment of taxes or not”.
  
  In fact it is the wedge issue. Canadians abroad willingly absorb the costs that you cited because they are tax exempt which in turn requires them to prove that they have no attachment to Canada. Thus, Canadians at home correctly perceive that Canadians abroad are obsessed with providing no evidence of attachment. The result of this attachment avoidance is that you have a disengaged Canadian population abroad feeding domestic myopia. If you add divided loyalties as evidenced by dual citizenship than the issues as seen by Canadians at home are two dimensional; fiscal concerns and alleged opportunism by naturalized citizens clinging to dual citizenship.
  
  A more balanced view of this emerging issue would be to recognize the primacy of fiscal concerns and xenophobic attitudes and not argue that Canada is locked in a dated 20th century viewpoint as you state. History has little to do with the current antipathy to overseas Canadians it is the nascent racism and fiscal concerns which lead to this myopic and critical view of naturalized Canadians abroad. (D.D., Langley,  BC)
  
  Comments?

• The Globe and Mail reports that there has been a rise in foreign expectant mothers delivering their children in Canada in order for their offspring to gain Canadian citizenship. Ireland and other countries have required a long residency period for expectant mothers in order for citizenship to be granted to their children. Should Canada initiate a residency period too? (DJD, Langley, BC)

• There is nothing wrong with instigating a residence requirement for the automatic granting of citizenship, but there must be some sort of flexibility. Despite the assertion that mothers are simply traveling to Canada for the purpose of giving birth, I suspect there is much more to this issue than immediately meets the eye. If women are flying to Canada to claim the coveted prize of citizenship for their newborns, it implies that Canada is granting visas to these women to visit Canada. Visas could be conditional on the basis that citizenship is not guaranteed should the child be born in Canada. If the visiting mother is coming from a country where a child born abroad is not an automatic citizen, then thought should be given to rejecting the visa application on the basis that the child could be born stateless. And of course, there must be special circumstances for refugees, as their situation is always more difficult. The requirement for people to claim refugee status in the first country they get to places an undue burden on other poor countries ill equipped to provide services and assistance while places like Canada (far from Central Africa, for example) have little to worry about. (AP, Ottawa, ON)

• Of course, this could be a way around the new citizenship restrictions on children of naturalized citizens born overseas not getting citizenship automatically. If the mother-to-be is a naturalized Canadian living abroad, she has a automatic right to come to Canada. Baby is born in Canada, gains full citizenship status, then mother and child leave again. One consequence is that the child is Canadian by birth and can then pass on citizenship to its own children born abroad. (RR, North Van, BC)

Comments?

As of April 17 an amendment to Canada’s citizenship act will begin the process of undermining Canada’s established generous twin principles for obtaining citizenship and will create two classes of Canadian citizenship by removing citizenship ascension privileges for some children born to Canadians abroad. This is a fundamental and worrisome change which will create two classes of Canadian citizens.

Major immigrant receiving countries (Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada) currently adhere to the twin principles of blood (jus sanguinis) and soil (jus solis) to confer citizenship on their immigrants. These two principles have insured the successful integration of millions of immigrants and their progeny over the last century in the so called “New World.” In fact, recent research highlights the positive political and economic effects of a rapid ascension of immigrants to citizenship. When you deviate from these twin principles of citizenship ascension immigrant integration problems appear. For example, if you adhere only to the blood principle (jus sanguinis) then you create an ethnic based citizenship where foreigners and their progeny are almost always politically excluded such as in Switzerland. If you only confer citizenship based on soil such as in Singapore then the progeny of Singaporean citizens born abroad are either stateless or obtain a different citizenship than their parents. These latter outcomes are indeed troubling.

However, we must recognize that the maintenance of the joint principles of blood and soil for citizenship acquisition impose a cost on any country including Canada. But how large is this cost to Canadians and in what ways will this cost appear? First, the number of overseas Canadian dual citizens will rise as more and more Canadians are born abroad and obtain Canadian citizenship via the blood principle while perhaps becoming eligible for a second citizenship based on birthplace. Next, the simultaneous existence of the blood and soil principles for citizenship acquisition insures that Canadian citizenship can be inherited across multiple generations abroad with the attendant loss of cultural, political and economic ties to Canada over successive generations. However, to date we have no empirical information on the number of dual Canadian citizens living abroad or a measure of lost ties to Canada.

In the absence of solid empirical information why did we embark on this substantive change in citizenship policy to penalize Canadians abroad? Are Canadians in fact becoming increasingly provincial as our world globalizes? Before I answer these questions let me state a few observations. First, the Canadian citizenship backlash is limited to foreign-born naturalized Canadians living overseas and not native-born Canadians. In fact, Canadians admire native-born Canadians on the international stage in sports, enterprise, entertainment and welcome them back with awards be they Wayne Gretsky or Leonard Cohen. So the central question is why do Canadians resident in Canada feel so differently about naturalized Canadians overseas today and why have some Canadians in Canada become inward looking? Two core reasons explain this antipathy: fiscal anxieties and racism. In fact, the tension between many Canadian policy makers and Canada’s overseas population is almost exclusively driven by fiscal concerns and taxes are the wedge issue. In short, if Canadians abroad can demonstrate little or no permanent attachment to Canada they are exempt from Canadian income taxation. Thus, Canadians at home correctly perceive that Canadians abroad are obsessed with providing no evidence of attachment. The result of this attachment avoidance is that you have a disengaged Canadian population abroad feeding domestic policymakers myopia. If you add the issue of divided loyalties as evidenced by concerns over foreign-born Canadians holding dual citizenship then the issues arising from a growing overseas population are now two dimensional; fiscal concerns coupled with accusations of alleged opportunism by naturalized citizens clinging to dual citizenship.

Given this analysis it is a mistake in my judgment to suspend the “jus sanguinis” principle for citizenship acquisition. First it is not clear that a growing Canadian dual citizenship population is a bad thing, since many positive outcomes arise under dual citizenship. Next, the perceived problem of non-attachment of overseas Canadians is a by product of our tax laws and not citizenship laws. Thus, one should change the tax laws and not citizenship ascension rules. Finally, and most importantly, this creation of a two-tiered citizenship class with and without ascension rights will undermine Canada’s continued ability to attract talented immigrants who desire Canadian citizenship, children and mobility abroad.

I would argue that the new citizenship legislation is not a case of the “tail wagging the dog” but of Canada “shooting itself in its own foot.”

Comments?