But Not for Me, Eh? and a Border Czar Digression

Yesterday, a whole raft of folks "woke up Canadian." The stuff in the eco-unfriendly styrofoam cup is, I believe, poutine. (Note that the previous link is not an endorsement of any particular iteration of poutine.)

I don't think I was one of the lucky new Canadians--but it's possible some of my older siblings were.

By the time I was born, my mother had renounced her Canadian citizenship. To become a U.S. citizen, she had to; the U.S. did not allow for dual citizenship. She made that choice for several reasons.

For one thing, her children were (and would be; she wanted a large family) born in the U.S. and thus be Americans, and she wanted to be a citizen of the same country as her children.

And for another, she was a university professor in the late 1940s and early 1950s, a time when institutions were requiring loyalty oaths. (Speaking of unenlightened immigration policy through history.)

I was born after she became an American. But I think two of my older sibs were born to a Canadian national. Whether they choose to do anything about it is another story.

As for me, I'll check into the situation more. However, Canadian citizenship is available to me the old-fashioned way: through living and learning. And once I get around to studying for the test, I'll pursue that, too.

Of course, welcoming a bunch of Americans and British War Brides into the citizenship fold isn't really the purpose of this new legislation, any more than President Obama's references to NAFTA have anything to do with Canada. (Digression: this new "Border Czar" in the U.S.? It's really a "Border with Mexico Czar." The northern border--well, that's just kind of a line somewhere, isn't it, out near the Dakotas?)

In Canada, this citizenship revision creates a similar truth-in-labelling problem. While the new law won't revoke citizenship from people who now have it, the law does put new, strict limits on who is eligible for Canadian citizenship in the future. (If your citizen parents lived in Canada, great. If they haven't lived in Canada, look out.) And the government isn't exactly emphasizing that part.

Here's one reason for these changes. Two years ago, controversy arose when Canadian citizens in Lebanon requested help from the Canadian government during a time of unrest in Lebanon. Many were dual citizens who lived in Lebanon full-time. They didn't live in Canada. They had never lived in Canada. They never meant to live in Canada. But they wanted protection.

I'm not arguing that Canadian immigration law needed revising. I'm not taking issue with specific provisions.

However, I am pointing out that the law is designed in large part to exclude people, while the government is spinning its announcements to focus on including people.

And it would be more HONEST for the government of Canada to acknowledge that fact.