Who chooses to become Canadian?

Immigrants to Canada can, after living here for four years as a permanent resident, opt to become naturalized Canadian citizens. Most immigrants opt for naturalization - but some cling to their original citizenship, even after living in this country for thirty, forty, fifty or more years.

The graph below shows the proportion of immigrants choosing to become naturalized Canadians by place of birth and length of time in Canada.

The patterns shown here can be explained by simple economic logic.

Becoming a citizen has both costs and benefits.

On the cost side: the potential immigrant must pass a test, pay a "right of citizenship" fee and a processing fee, swear allegiance to the Queen, and possibly forfeit citizenship in their country of birth.

On the benefit side: the right to travel on a Canadian passport, to vote, and the right to remain in Canada if you have committed a crime. Citizens are also given preference for government [i.e. federal public service] jobs.

 

People born in the US, Northern or Western Europe might not bother applying for Canadian citizenship because the benefits are relatively lower. They are able to travel to the US and elsewhere easily on their existing passports, so there is relatively little additional benefit to holding a Canadian passport. If they are arrested for drunk driving and faced with deportation - well, there are worse things in the world than being deported to Italy. 

The relatively lower naturalization rate among people born in US, Germany or India can be explained by cost factors. These countries make it hard to hold dual nationality. The risk of losing citizenship in one's country of birth, and thus the right to return to live in that country, is a significant cost of obtaining Canadian citizenship (on dual citizenship in the US, see here, for India, here).

So it's all just a matter of economics - isn't it?

Comments

[Sam Lyon]

Not sure it's true that citizens are given preference for all government jobs. Maybe some (i.e., national security-related ones) but certainly not all.

[Frances Woolley]

Sam - true, it depends how one defines a government job. When it comes to the federal public service, Canadian citizens are given preference, and not just for national security-related jobs - see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-33.01/page-5.html#h-16.

Preferences, Priorities and Entitlements

Marginal note:Preference to veterans and Canadian citizens

39 (1) In an advertised external appointment process, subject to any priorities established under paragraph 22(2)(a) and by sections 39.1, 40 and 41, any of the following who, in the Commission’s opinion, meet the essential qualifications referred to in paragraph 30(2)(a) shall be appointed ahead of other candidates, in the following order:

(a) a person who is in receipt of a pension by reason of war service, within the meaning of the schedule;

(b) a veteran or a survivor of a veteran, within the meaning of the schedule; and

(c) a Canadian citizen, within the meaning of the Citizenship Act, in any case where a person who is not a Canadian citizen is also a candidate.

I can't see a similar restriction for provincial government jobs.

[Majromax]

It's relatively easy for a US citizen to obtain a foreign dual citizenship; the US imposes no particular extra burdens on such dual-nationals that it would not on singly-American nationals abroad.

In fact, because of taxation based on global income, many American dual citizens abroad wish to renounce their American citizenship to become single-citizens of their non-US home. The US has made this process more expensive and difficult in recent years.

[Majromax]

Additionally, especially for Americans, does your calculation properly include only those who are permanent residents? It is relatively easier for Americans to enter Canada on various forms of temporary permits such as study programs or NAFTA work permits, which do not immediately lead to eligibility.

I don't know what's exactly contained in the census PUMF data, but public tables that aren't produced by CIC rarely distinguish by immigration status.

[Frances Woolley]

Majromax - yes, the 2006 census does differentiate non-permanent residents from permanent residents/landed immigrants etc, and they're pulled out of the sample here. So no hockey players!

I agree with you that the US laws on dual nationality are complex and changing over time. Note that this data is from 2006, before the US started seriously enforcing the rule that Americans living outside of the US had to file US income taxes every year. Things may look different once we have data from the 2016 Census.

Although the US has eased up in terms of allowing people to have dual citizenship, the state department web site is still pretty discouraging:

"A U.S. national may acquire foreign nationality by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. national may not lose the nationality of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another nationality does not risk losing U.S. nationality. However, a person who acquires a foreign nationality by applying for it may lose U.S. nationality. In order to lose U.S. nationality, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. nationality."

[Majromax]

At the same time, the State department also takes the "with intention" strictly:

>> The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. nationals intend to retain United States nationality when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, declare their allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

[Sam Lyon]

Ah ha. Yes, my (British PR, now naturalised Canadian) background has been in provincial govt, which hasn't differentiated in my experience.

[Jeremy Fox]

What Majromax said. I'm a US citizen by birth, and a naturalized Canadian citizen. The US doesn't impose significant costs on dual citizens in practice that it doesn't impose on US-only citizens living abroad.

[Henry Cunha]

1. Some interesting complementary notions here, such as

"In traditional immigrant-receiving countries, the ideology of naturalization has been strongly assimilationist. The reality is that immigrants often approach naturalization with some concerns or with practical interests in mind that run counter to traditional membership norms. These include the notion that immigrants should be members of a single state, rather than multiple states; that membership should be earned through assimilation, rather than acquired as a right; and that citizenship requires sacrifice on the part of its holders, rather than involving calculations of personal advantage."

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/citizenship-globalized-world

2. Your graph ends in 2006. Since then, there has been a rather sharp drop in the numbers acquiring nationality in Canada. Would this have anything to do with Harper government policies?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jusVn9ZpDRMzRDMLJknxNrlUa0yBcYtYXdvJiGI5n80/pub?output=html

[Frances Woolley]

Henry - I'm not sure that I see a big trend in the numbers you attach - they seem to go up and down a bit. One thing to remember is that there is quite a lot of return migration - i.e. people returning to their country of origin. It wouldn't be surprising to see some return migration after the fiscal crisis in 2008. Also processing times might explain some of that up and down pattern - it can take a while for applications for citizenship to be processed.