Everyone has been making a big deal about citizenship revocation lately, particularly post-Maryam Monsef birthplace revelation, but as it turns out, the situation is not as black-and-white as presented, particularly in some media depictions like this one from CBC. So the former chief of staff for the department sent out a tweet-storm of context and correction that is worth reading, and shows why it’s wrong to conflate that issue with the other revocations that are taking place. This is also interesting context to add to the questions that John McCallum faced in Senate QP last week where he stated that he’d look into a moratorium on these revocations that are happening without much in the way of due process or an appeal mechanism, but it does shape the issue in a different fashion, so again, it does give pause as to what the moratorium being demanded is really asking for. It’s something to keep an eye on, but for now, here’s that boatload of context for consideration.
1/ So much sloppiness in this article, hard to know where to begin. Have to really parse it to find useful info. https://t.co/irQUpA0fhW
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
2/ Nancy Caron's comments on behalf of the Dept are the most useful part of the article. She describes the problem and process well.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
3/ But failure to distinguish up front the types of fraud at issue in these cases makes the story blurry and misleading.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
4/ For example, the overwhelming majority of these revocations are for people who lied about being resident in Cda long enough to qualify.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
5/ None of these are refugees (or they wouldn't be going back to their country of persecution). So right there is an important difference.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
6/ Second, the power to revoke citizenship for misrepresentation predates Bill C-24. It's always been the law, for obvious reasons.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
7/ Reasons so obvious Trudeau rightly supported them during the campaign. This has nothing to do w/ revoking citizenship of legit citizens.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
8/ If someone says they've been living in Cda for 3 yrs to qualify for citizenship and they've just been using a fake address, that's fraud
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
9/ They are not legit citizens who have subsequently done something to justify revoking properly granted citizenship.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
10/ Whether govt should have power to revoke properly granted citizenship for treason (as it could before 1977) or terrorism (C-24) or …
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
11/ taking up arms against Cdn soldiers in the field is a legitimate but separate debate, which this article confuses with fraud revocations
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
12/ Third, as Caron notes, the acceleration is due to the fact that these cases require extensive investigation. When the previous govt …
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
13/ made revocation for fraud a priority (bc support for our immigration system requires faith it is being well-policed), it took time …
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
14/ we are only now seeing the fruits of those early efforts. So comparing numbers of revocations between govts is not all that helpful.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
15/ The residency fraud CIC uncovered was staggering. Eg, hundreds of applicants using one fake address. Abuse is a large and real problem.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
16/ It ultimately undermines public faith in our immigration system to ignore it. Good for the Liberals for continuing the fraud crackdown.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
17/ But media makes this harder when it lumps very different issues (meaningless numbers, C-24, C-6, residency fraud, refugees) together.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
19/ Monsef's case is interesting, but it's part of a tiny and anomalous subset of the much easier non-refugee residency fraud issue.
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
20/ And it's important not to conflate the two or even discuss them in the same breath. Fin. (Erratum: skipped 18)
— Howard Anglin (@howardanglin) October 9, 2016
Good reads:
- While RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson may have made a tearful apology for harassment women faced, his tone was dismissive only a couple years ago.
- Experts can’t explain the drop in the number of electronic surveillance requests by law enforcement agencies in the last year.
- Apparently the government has been aware of that arcane rule that has certain citizenships “expiring,” but haven’t done anything to fix it.
- Apparently the US is looking to emulate our private refugee sponsorship programme, because we’re awesome and it works.
- Some researchers are saying that carbon pricing doesn’t necessarily have to impact on farming (and we don’t all need to become vegetarian).
- After the defeat of his animal rights bill, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith said supporters should vote against MPs who defeated it – err, except a lot of his fellow Liberals did.
- The Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women inquiry has set up their offices in Vancouver.
- The government is saying that there should be no more embassies constructed on Sussex Drive after the RCMP flagged security risks along the street.
- Chris Alexander is trying to soften his image on the “barbaric cultural practices” blunder as he prepares his leadership bid.
- Paul Wells continues his exploration of the effects of carbon taxes, and how to manage them by making better choices – which is the whole point.
Odds and ends:
NDP MP Christine Moore is pregnant again (and wants to be able to speak and vote remotely, which I’m sorry, but no).
Consumers are concerned about GMOs…because they think they’ll acquire mutant genes by eating them. Unbelievable that MPs want to pander to this.
I can't think of even a single economist who would say this, @MichelleRempel. They say it would take prices that high to meet Paris target. https://t.co/IjpNt2TwcO
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) October 9, 2016
This talking point is false. Any carbon price >0 will see emissions reductions. Demand curves slope down. (h/t @MikePMoffatt) https://t.co/lyF5VMaJPz
— Joel Wood, so-called expert (@JoelWWood) October 9, 2016