Important for recent or future applicants

Generally I have not informed myself regarding the U.S. Naturalization process. But, since part of the criticism of CIC and the Canadian Naturalization process (grant citizenship) has been based on unfavourable comparisons to the U.S. and because those comparisons have been coming from unreliable sources who often cite unsubstantiated and sometimes grossly false information (or opinion based on feelings rather than real information), I decided to take a look.

As usual, a lot of real information is easily available if one will just bother to look for it, just bother to read it.

Bottomline: there are some key policy distinctions, largely about the overall length of time and duration of ties. The path to citizenship in Canada allows many to apply and become citizens, assuming the process takes 16 months, in less than three and a half years following their landing in Canada. The shortest route to citizenship in the U.S. (for 90 percent of the applicants, based info on the ">U.S. guide), is five years and three months (the U.S. allows an applicant to submit app up to three months prior to date of becoming eligible), two years longer than it would take in Canada, and even if one is comparing the timeline for only Canadian PRs who do not have credit for days prior to landing as a PR, the overall minimum timeline is one year longer to become a U.S. citizen.

The difference, in this, is a policy one, about the respective requirements as to duration of permanent residential ties to the country. Canada recognizes eligibility much much sooner than the U.S. Moreover, there are some intangible aspects to the U.S. requirements which means applicants can be denied for such things like insufficient showing of "good character." In contrast, Canada has relatively fixed/tangible criteria (recognizing, however, that for those who do not meet the 1095 days actual physical presence test, judges have discretion as to which standard to apply).

Here are some key comparisons based on true information:

*** To become a U.S. citizen, one must renounce all other citizenships. Canada allows PRs to become citizens without giving up other citizenships.

Even though many American citizens are "dual" citizens, that is, have U.S. citizenship in addition to citizenship of another country, to become a naturalized citizen, you must renounce all other citizenships and thus will NOT be a dual citizen. For example, I am a U.S. citizen. I will not lose my citizenship by becoming a Canadian citizen. A Canadian citizen who becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen, however, must renounce their Canadian citizenship. (There is some fuzziness in how this applies in practice; historically I have observed many people who have made their home in the U.S. decline to become U.S. citizens because it meant renouncing their existing citizenship, but in the last several years there is some hint that there are workarounds relative to this, but I have no idea how that works.)


*** Residency/Absences:

Canada: 3 years credit; allows credit for up to one year based on residence in Canada prior to becoming a PR.

U.S.: For 90 percent of applicants, 5 years as a Permanent Resident, with no trip outside the U.S. for 6 months or more.

Net actual, physical presence in the country is 3/4 (3 of 4 years )for Canada, and 1/2 (30 out of 60 months) in the U.S., but again no trip outside the U.S. could be as long as six months for the previous five years (on this, tens of thousands of Canadian citizenship applicants fall way short of meeting this).

HOWEVER, Canada does not impose the actual, physical presence test on all applicants, and grants some applicants citizenship even though they have significantly less than three years of physical presence (as few as 731 days of actual physical presence) pursuant to the centralized life test, sometimes referred to as the Koo criteria.


*** Lengthy absences:

If you are absent from the U.S. for 1 year or more, a "re-entry permit" is required to re-enter the U.S., and no time prior to that can count toward meeting the residency requirement; even if you are outside the U.S. for less than a year, but more than six months, that too is deemed to interrupt/disrupt the "continuous" residence required, and so one would have to start over. (The U.S. system, though, has some quirks . . . even though time before leaving may not count, for those who return to the U.S. within two years, one year minus a day of the time outside the country may count . . . not sure how this works in practice, although their guide gives an example, see page 23.)

*** Character:

Canada does not count time spent incarcerated or on parole or probation toward the residency requirement, but otherwise there is no character requirement (one must, of course, not be an inadmissible PR due to criminality or security grounds, that is the criteria for which PR status may be revoked and the person removed from Canada).

The U.S. requires a finding of "good character," which of course is not a precise standard; basically allows the U.S. to deny otherwise eligible applicants based on less tangible grounds. Their guide lists "examples" of "things that might demonstrate a lack of good moral character" at page 25; they range from failing to pay child support to engaging in illegal gambling or "habitual drunkennes" as well as any violation at all of controlled substance laws in any country.

The lack of a criminal record does not suffice in the U.S. system. Indeed, if the applicant was ever arrested or detained by any law enforcement officer for any reason, and NO charges were filed, the applicant must disclose this AND submit an original official statement by the arresting agency or applicable court confirming that NO charges were filed. This is a pretty substantial burden on many applicants who may have had very minor encounters with law enforcement, or who were briefly detained due to misunderstandings, mis-identification, or similar circumstance. There is nothing comparable to this in the Canadian process.

The U.S. requires information (as prescribed) for any failure to file a tax return or explanation as to taxes overdue including documentation of current status of repayment program.



*** Overall

The above are just some highlights in the distinctions.

The overriding key difference, it appears to me, is that the basic eligibility requirements to become a U.S. citizen are significantly greater, more stringent. If these were required in Canada that would eliminate a lot of the questions that CIC must evaluate in processing applicants for Canadian citizenship, and probably would allow for a quicker process. For the vast majority of Canadian applicants, the additional scrutiny CIC takes the time to conduct, and thus the additional time to process, are relatively minor impediment, especially since the oveall path to citizenship, from date of coming to Canada to date of oath, is shorter than in the U.S.

That is, the net path to citizenship in Canada is less expensive and actually takes significantly less time (overall, from settling in the country to date of oath) than it does to become a U.S. citizen, and that is without the extra layers of qualification that the U.S. imposes (such as the "good character" requirement).

Thus, overall, apart from (or in addition to) the undesirability of the U.S. as a place to live, it appears to me that the Canadian path to citizenship is far more friendly and quicker and cheaper than the U.S. path to citizenship.

And, once again, it is worth emphasizing that real, true information, is vastly preferrable to unsubstantiated or exaggerated or simply made up stuff. By the way, just as an example of exaggerations: the previously cited "3 - 5 month" timeline for U.S. citizenship processing is likewise an exaggeration: the U.S. government site says that it aims to reduce the current timeline to six months . . . and, again, a little simple arithmetic and language comprehension is all that is necessary to see that more than six months is not five months let alone 3 months.

Edited by dpenabill - 14 Jun 2011 at 3:50pm

dpenabill wrote: Not all of us here complain. I actually think that CIC is doing a remarkably good job under difficult circumstances. I realize that some are subjected to inordinate wait times, but this is not about obtaining a drivers' license, it is a life-changing transition, one of the biggest events in a person's lifetime. The overwhelming vast majority of citizenship applicants are approved and given the oath within fifteen months of submitting their application, year in and year out. In my area, the wait time is barely a little over a year (according to the news account following the oath ceremony that just took place here for 99 new citizens). This is despite the plethora of rushed applications, ineligible applicants, and poorly documented applicants, which of course bog the system down. There are nearly a quarter million applications submitted every year now. That's a huge job. CIC is doing very well, I think, under the circumstances. I am no fan of a Conservative government and the trend is not one I like. I really disagree with the cut cut cut approach to programs that work for real Canadians while, indeed, giving tax breaks to large companies and funding military adventures abroad. But the MP for my area is NDP, and the vote has long been NDP (with an occasional Liberal slipping in) in this area, so my single vote will not change the political landscape at all, for I would just be one more NDP voter in the woods.

Sorry but the CIC processing times are nothing short of PATHETIC! I am at 27 months!

Lets look at some other processing times

UK: Our service standards set out how quickly we aim to decide applications for British citizenship. The standard is that we will decide 95% of applications within six months. http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/applying/waitingtimes/

Australia: The time it takes to apply for and be granted Australian citizenship varies. For many applicants it takes between three to six months.
http://www.citizenship.gov.au/applying/how_to_apply/conferral_app_process/

US: 5 months of the date we receive them
https://egov.uscis.gov/cris/processTimesDisplayInit.do

Canada: 8 months just to open the application! Then another 12 months or more! remarkably good job for sure!

aussiepete:

I understand your frustrations. There are indeed individual cases for which the delays are not merely inordinate but an unjust denial of fair process. Usually there is some explanation, but not always. The size or remoteness of your local office may be a factor, but even at that your timeline is way beyond the acceptable. But, it really is the exception. Most applicants take the oath in fifteen months or less. 80 percent are processed in 15 to 19 months. That 80 percent includes thousands and thousands of the types of applications I referred to in my previous post, ranging from borderline eligibility to frauds, from poorly completed applications to those containing inconsistencies and omissions, and so on.

In your case, mandamus may be an available remedy. Probably not worth it, especially now that you have taken the test.

But, as to the timeline, as I also pointed out in my previous post, there is more to compare than the mere processing timeline. To become a citizen in the U.S. for example, takes five years and three months minimum (except for applicants with special exceptions) from the date of becoming a U.S. PR to the date the application is processed. In Canada, in contrast, the timeline may be as short as three years and three months from the date of landing as a PR (for PRs eligible to apply two years after landing, and whose application takes 15 months, which is how long a majority of applications take in Canada . . . see previous numbers based on real sources of information), or four years and three months for those who first come to live in Canada when they land as a PR. That is, the path to Canadian citizenship is, overall, a year less than it is in the States. For the majority.

RQ cases, many of which take a long, long time compared to others, should not be factored into a comparison. In the U.S. there are no Koo based criteria allowing for eligibility even though the applicant has not met their actual, physical presence threshold, and generally there is no additional process for applicants in close cases, in the U.S., to submit additional documents in order to persuade the decision-maker to grant citizenship -- rather, there are instead some criteria in the U.S. process that allows the rejection of an applicant for things like the lack of good character based on, for example, a failure to fully pay child support (indeed, any applicant for citizenship in the U.S. who has dependents who do not live with the applicant must submit proof of providing financial support for those dependents as part of the application for citizenship). While it is not well understood, RQ is really a process which allows applicants, whose cases might otherwise be rejected, an opportunity to present additional documentation and evidence and argument with a chance to still be granted citizenship. It is my impression (though I do not know the U.S. system very well at all) that there is nothing comparable to this in the U.S., that rejections are more common -- note, for example, the comparison between number of applications approved versus the number not approved in Canada: for the 2008-2008 fiscal year (annual report) was 173,976 compared to 3,869. Note too, for that period, there were 12,866 hearings, so less than one in three applicants that went to a full hearing were denied, while overall the ratio of sucessfull applications to denied applications was well over 40 to 1. This includes all the RQ cases decided in that time. This includes all the language and knowledge test failures. Still, 40 to 1 applications were approved.


In contrast, music75

The other guy works for CIC so he is upset

I assume this is in reference to me. Foremost, I am not upset. I have a strong affection for the truth and real information (one might say that is part of why I quit practicing law two decades ago) and sometimes a compulsive drive to set a record straight. I participate at length at this site because I am interested in helping. I became interested because of my own circumstances, which include some aspects which make RQ a significant risk for me (except I have elected to wait almost another year, almost a year past when I technically became eligible for citizenship, in order to apply under circumstances in which there should be no questions, no doubts, no RQ . . . though of course I realize there are no guarantees, I could get RQ nonetheless). I participate to the extent I do because I believe I am helping some people understand the system better (and indeed I get a fairly steady stream of private messages thanking me and asking for more specific information), so they can make better decisions about when to apply (way too many apply before they should), about what considerations there are in making that decision, and to help those who have been given RQ to better prepare their initial response to the RQ and to better present their case. See, for example, one of my typical posts in the RQ discussions thread, on this page, or any of my large number of posts in this thread "Residency: tests, proof, practice, policy," in which you might notice that I am actually quite critical of the current state of affairs with the provisions of law prescribing the residency requirement and CIC's less than consistent approach. Another example of my usual posts (I obviously tend to be highly detailed and give extensive responses) is in response to questions about applying based on just meeting the basic residence requirement, in this thread.

But there are documented reasons for the criticisms I aim at CIC and the process there, criticisms and reasons for the criticism articulated by Federal Court judges as well.

In contrast, really, what will really help most (not all, unfortunately there are some whose cases are unjustly delayed for utterly unacceptable time periods and for unacceptable reasons -- I should note, though, that it appears that every year there are at least a couple or more mandamus cases filed against CIC relative to the failure to finalize citizenship applications, so there is a remedy available . . . probably not cheap, but available nonetheless) . . . back to what I believe will help most, and that is to help PRs recognize what records they should keep, what they need to do to prepare for and complete the application, what pitfalls to be aware of and to avoid, including in particular circumstances that may increase their risk of getting RQ.

I do not see the timeline improving much in the near future, not under the current system, not with so many applications based on barely 1095 days of presence (and many less), or with all the other issues I pointed out in my previous post. What people can do to help themselves is to avoid being one of those who makes the kinds of applications I describe in my previous post. A large part of what some of the discussions in this forum should accomplish is, indeed, to help people do just that, to do it in a way that helps themselves and helps CIC, so that we can all become contributing citizens.    

About working for CIC, as I said before, and this is the truth:

No, I do not work for CIC and I do not work in any immigration related field. And no I do not work for the Canadian government in any capacity. And I never have.

And, I should add, I have never worked in immigration, not anywhere, not for any country, not as a consultant, or otherwise, not as a government employee, not as a legal representative (except for one friend who I helped with getting his wife status in the U.S. a quarter century ago or so, but I really had no idea what I was doing at the time, my real job back then was mostly defending criminals and doing some divorce work).

I am just one more PR working his way toward Canadian citizenship.

One who does read real sources of information. Which leads to this:


Renunciation of other citizenships:

My source is the guide to naturalization published by the U.S. government.

Page 3 it says:

To become a U.S. citizen you must take the Oath of Allegiance. The Oath includes several promises you make when you become a U.S. citizen, including promises to:
• Give up all prior allegiance to any other nation or sovereignty;

And, indeed, here is the actual oath one must take to become a U.S. citizen:
(source is linked here, at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services site)

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Just in case words are not your forte, the very first promise one must make in this oath is to:
absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen

Yes, indeed, many U.S. citizens can and do hold dual citizenship, that is, are also citizens of another country in addition to being a U.S. citizen.

That's the kind of country the U.S. is. They openly and blatantly discriminate against immigrants. Most U.S. citizens can hold citizenship from additional countries, but not new citizens who obtain citizenship through the naturalization process. That is, while other U.S. citizens can hold and keep their U.S. citizenship, while being the citizen of another country, or when becoming the citizen of another country, if you immigrate to the U.S. you must renounce all other citizenships in order to become an American citizen.

The Canadian oath, by the way, is the following:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

No renunciation of any other citizenship necessary.

timbit_TO wrote: music75 wrote: The other guy works for CIC so he is upset Just wake up buddy You, buddy, need to look up the meaning of ad hominem; you can disagree with someone's opinion, but you won't get very far with this sort of "reasoning", especially when the individual concerned just happens to be the most thoughtful and generous contributor in any forum I have ever seen, who in my humble opinion single-handedly does a much better job of informing and educating the public than the entire CIC call center.  Frankly, CIC should be so lucky to have someone of dpenabill's caliber. Now on the matter of dual nationalities, and the lovely Victorian prose of these oaths, I have it on good authority that in practice the USCIS does not require proof of renunciation of foreign citizenship as a condition of naturalization.  I am somewhat of an aficionado of semantics myself, so looking carefully at the US oath what it obviously requires the new citizen to do is to "renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity...to any foreign...state, of...which I have heretofore been a...citizen".  These are obviously debatable points, whether a) swearing to renounce allegiance and fidelity is the same as renouncing one's citizenship, and by extension b) whether one can still be a citizen of a country to which one has subsequently sworn an oath not be loyal to These issues actually turn in my opinion more on whether this verbal 'triple talaq' of sorts is sufficient for the hapless foreign potentate to release his former subject from whatever fealty is owed to him.  These practices obviously vary from potentate to potentate :-) but in most cases I think countries require the individual to go through their own process of renunciation. As far as the US of A is concerned, however, this is more of an honor code promise, one which the citizen is certainly required to upheld if called upon in the circumstances further enumerated in the oath, but one that requires no further proof at the time it is made. The case of US citizens voluntarily acquiring another nationality is not quite so clear cut either.  Those who are interested can google sec. 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and related DOS memoranda. The differences in the Canadian and American oaths are indeed curious.  This has been an enjoyable distraction from the rather tiring (albeit true) laments over the inefficiencies of the CIC citizenship process.

Aussiepete wrote the best post we are not comparing only the US and Cdn delays but a lot of different countries like the UK, Australia (commonwealth) etC....

I will admit to being weird. (so sue me)

Especially if being compulsive makes one weird. Law will do that to a person. (In the States the saying goes "the law is a jealous mistress".)

Thank you timbit_TO for the kind remarks. And, indeed, I do try to contribute here in a helpful way.


More on renunciation of prior citizenships/dual nationality

Because it will affect me, an area in which I have done a good deal of research is the affect of a U.S. citizen becoming a citizen of another country. An American citizen who becomes a Canadian citizen can indeed be a citizen of both countries.

In Sec 349 INA subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) are the provisions relevant to becoming a naturalized citizen of another country or taking an oath of allegiance to another country. These will result in a loss of U.S. citizenship only if they are done so with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.

The words of the oath are important. Taking the oath is an official act with legal consequences.

When Canada's oath and requirements for naturalization were comparable to those in the U.S. (a little over three decades ago), that is, when Canada's process required naturalized citizens to renounce prior citizenships (national allegiances), that effected the intent to renounce, and at that time becoming a Canadian citizen meant the loss of U.S. citizenship. Canada changed its oath, its process, and so renunciation of prior allegiances was no longer required.

The U.S. State Department has an explicit policy about this; it states:

The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of 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.

That said, the application form for renewing one's U.S. passport requires the applicant to affirm that they have not become a naturalized citizen of another country. I know of many who overlooked the words of the declaration they are affirming (so many people do not read much if any of such things, despite the importance of doing so, especially on official documents for which a false declaration may subject the person to some severe penalties), signed it, and got their new passport. My understanding is that one should simply put a line through the part of the declaration that is not applicable (as in crossing out the language about not becoming a citizen of another country . . . like its oath, American declarations in such things tend to be quite lengthy and detailed, and so this language is buried in lengthy verbiage. . . I come by my propensities naturally one might say) before signing it, and that suffices.


While this is a digression, it illustrates that the impact, on one's first citizenship, of the words of the oath or significance of becoming a naturalized citizen of a country, depends on the law of the country one is a citizen of.

The oath is not really akin to the triple talaq, since an oath is an official declaration with specified legal effect. It is, perhaps, akin to the triple talaq in the sense that it is a clear expression of intent.

You are correct, timbit_TO, to point out that swearing an oath that articulates the renunciation of allegiance to another country does not necessarily effect the legal renunciation of citizenship.

I have stated this a bit differently than you did because I do not think there is any room to quible about the meaning of the words (the meaning of the words in the U.S. oath clearly articulate the promise to renounce prior citizenships), the quibble is as to the legal effect of taking this oath.

And, again, that depends on the particular country involved. I am not certain, but I understand that some countries like Germany deem a person to lose their German citizenship if they become a naturalized citizen of another country or take an oath of allegiance to another country, no explicit intent or overt renunciation of German citizenship necessary. So, for a German who takes either the U.S. oath or the Canadian oath, the differences in the oath make no difference as to the effect it has on their German citizenship.

There are other countries which, I understand, simply will not allow the renunciation of their citizenship under any circumstances, so even if one made every effort to effect the renunciation of citizenship, it would be of no effect. These are countries which want to retain jurisdiction over their citizens regardless.

And the U.S. actually comes close to the latter. That is because the U.S. demands that U.S. citizens file tax returns and in many cases pay U.S. taxes no matter where in the world they live, no matter for how long, and the U.S. wants to maintain this capacity to extract taxes. So they are very much inclined to interpret all but the most explicit acts in a way that keeps a U.S. citizen a tax paying U.S. citizen (recognizing, though, for most Americans abroad tax treaties allow for credits or deductions that offset any tax that might be owed to the U.S.).

But make no mistake, the oath is, again, an official declaration of legal import. It is not merely an honor code promise. But yes, its legal impact on one's existing citizenship will depend on the law of that country.

I have not followed what impact it has on other particular countries, but I knew of many people who were living in the U.S. long term (with roots deeply set in the U.S., kids born in the U.S. for example, career firmly in the U.S.), but who deliberately did not become U.S. citizens because they did not want to lose their British citizenship. Then, suddenly, in recent years quite a number of such individuals suddenly became U.S. citizens -- I had the impression that something may have changed in UK law that would allow them to retain British citizenship notwithstanding having taken an oath that includes a renunciation of their citizenship.

In the meantime, though, having dual citizenship is of little or no import in any country in which the person is a citizen. For example, an American citizen who also has citizenship in some other country will be treated as an American citizen by American authorities with little or no regard for any other citizenship the person has. There is no right to contact the Canadian embassy, or obtain assistance from Ottawa, for example, if a dual U.S./Canadian citizen is detained by U.S. authorities.



Edited by dpenabill - 15 Jun 2011 at 2:02pm