# "Proposed law would strip Canadian citizenship for acts of war"



## The Bread Guy (29 Jan 2013)

_MOD NOTE:  I'm keeping this separate from the Khadr thread so this one can be discussed/debated on the merits (or lack thereof) of the bill itself._


> A Conservative MP wants to reward permanent residents serving in the Canadian Armed Forces with faster citizenship and revoke the citizenship of people who engage in acts of war against Canada.
> 
> “Canadian citizenship is an honour and a privilege,” said Devinder Shory, who represents Calgary Northeast, in a press release. “Those who put themselves on the front lines for Canada deserve to be acknowledged, while those who repudiate their citizenship by committing violent acts against Canada’s armed forces should not be able to retain it.”
> 
> ...


Postmedia News, 29 Jan 13


Summary:  C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces)  - draft text of bill _as is right now_ attached (4 page PDF)


----------



## mba2011 (29 Jan 2013)

It's an interesting idea. There are countries that offer something similar, like the French Foreign Legion (Français par le sang versé) and a few smaller nations who offer an accelerated citizenship process for mbrs of their forces. In the case of Canada, its hard to see an obvious benefit for the Forces as a whole, but it is an attractive bonus for some soldiers. It would be worth looking into if there is a real benefit to Canada.

As for removing the citizenship of those who fight against the CF, its a slippery slope. Who decides what constitutes fighting against the CF is? Is it supplying weapons, financially backing the enemy, or literally fighting the CF? It could lead to a host of other changes to who can be a citizen. Like it says in the linked article, it would very hard to implement in reality. Is it worth the time and money?


----------



## cupper (29 Jan 2013)

The US has something similar for non citizens that serve as well.

Also, there have been a couple of cases where naturalized citizens have had their citizenship revoked as a result of criminal convictions.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Jan 2013)

I support rewarding those who are willing to contribute to Canada at the cost of their lives. 

On the flip side, what happens to native born Canadians as opposed to naturalized ones? From what I can see, the bill does not provide the opportunity to declare someone stateless.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jan 2013)

armourmike said:
			
		

> .... Who decides what constitutes fighting against the CF is? Is it supplying weapons, financially backing the enemy, or literally fighting the CF? ....


Good point - it's not detailed in the current draft of the Bill itself right now.  I'm hoping that would be hashed out during Committee work _if_ it goes that far.

Also, for those interested, here's the House of Commons discussion on the bill from yesterday.


----------



## gcclarke (30 Jan 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> The US has something similar for non citizens that serve as well.
> 
> Also, there have been a couple of cases where naturalized citizens have had their citizenship revoked as a result of criminal convictions.



Not really. The only thing for which a citizen (of any stripe) can be stripped of their citizenship is fraud in relation to either their citizenship application, or the application which lead to them becoming a permanent resident prior to citizenship. There is no such provision under the citizenship act for stripping people of their citizenship for any crimes committed after they legally became citizens.

Nor, IMHO, should there be.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Jan 2013)

Direct combat against Canadian troops overseas in a openly declared mission would be the only one I am comfortable with. Otherwise the slope gets slippery.


----------



## gcclarke (30 Jan 2013)

I'm perfectly happy with the current mandatory sentence of life in prison for high treason.


----------



## Nemo888 (30 Jan 2013)

I prefer hanging for high treason.


----------



## cupper (30 Jan 2013)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Not really. The only thing for which a citizen (of any stripe) can be stripped of their citizenship is fraud in relation to either their citizenship application, or the application which lead to them becoming a permanent resident prior to citizenship. There is no such provision under the citizenship act for stripping people of their citizenship for any crimes committed after they legally became citizens.
> 
> Nor, IMHO, should there be.



Here is the pertinent information from USCIS

http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartL.html

Chapter 2: Grounds for Revocation of Naturalization

In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on the following grounds:

A. Person Procures Naturalization Illegally

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if he or she procured naturalization illegally. Procuring naturalization illegally simply means that the person was not eligible for naturalization in the first place. Accordingly, any eligibility requirement for naturalization that was not met can form the basis for an action to revoke the naturalization of a person. This includes the requirements of residence, physical presence, lawful admission for permanent residence, good moral character, and attachment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] 

Discovery that a person failed to comply with any of the requirements for naturalization at the time the person became a U.S. citizen renders his or her naturalization illegally procured. This applies even if the person is innocent of any willful deception or misrepresentation.[2]


B. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation[3]

1. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if there is deliberate deceit on the part of the person in misrepresenting or failing to disclose a material fact or facts on his or her naturalization application and subsequent examination.

In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on this basis if:

    The naturalized U.S. citizen misrepresented or concealed some fact;

    The misrepresentation or concealment was willful;

    The misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material; and

    The naturalized U.S. citizen procured citizenship as a result of the misrepresentation or concealment.[4]


This ground of revocation includes omissions as well as affirmative misrepresentations. The misrepresentations can be oral testimony provided during the naturalization interview or can include information contained on the application submitted by the applicant. The courts determine whether the misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material. The test for materiality is whether the misrepresentations or concealment had a tendency to affect the decision. It is not necessary that the information, if disclosed, would have precluded naturalization.[5]


2. Membership or Affiliation with Certain Organizations

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of his or her naturalization.[6] In general, a person who is involved with such organizations cannot establish the naturalization requirements of having an attachment to the Constitution and of being well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.[7]

The fact that a person becomes involved with such an organization within five years after the date of naturalization is prima facie evidence that he or she concealed or willfully misrepresented material evidence that would have prevented the person’s naturalization.


C. Other than Honorable Discharge before Five Years of Honorable Service after Naturalization

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if:

    The person became a United States citizen through naturalization on the basis of honorable service in the U.S. armed forces;[8]

    The person subsequently separates from the U.S. armed forces under other than honorable conditions; and

    The other than honorable discharge occurs before the person has served honorably for a period or periods aggregating at least five years.[9]

Further from FindLaw: http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html

Grounds for Denaturalization

*Falsification or Concealment of Relevant Facts:* You must be absolutely truthful when filling out paperwork and answering interview questions related to the naturalization application process. Even if the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) fails to recognize any lies or ommissions at first, the agency may file a denaturalization action against you after citizenship has been granted. Examples include failure to disclose criminal activities or lying about one's real name or identity.
    
*Refusal to Testify Before Congress:* You may not refuse to testify before a U.S. congressional committee whose job it is to investigate your alleged involvement in subversive acts, such as those intended to harm U.S. officials or overthrow the U.S. government. This requirement to testify in order to maintain citizenship status expires after 10 years.
    
*Membership in Subversive Groups:* Your citizenship may be revoked if the U.S. government can prove that you joined a subversive organization within five years of becoming a naturalized citizen. Membership in such organizations is considered a violation of the oath of U.S. allegiance. Examples include the Nazi Party and Al Qaeda.

*Dishonorable Military Discharge:* Since you may become a naturalized U.S. citizen by virtue of serving in the U.S. military, your citizenship may be revoked if you are dishonorably discharged before serving five years. Reasons for dishonorable discharge, which must follow a general court-martial, include desertion and sexual assault.


The cases I referred to were ones where the person was charged with an offense during the naturalization process, but no action was taken to stop the process. Later they were convicted of another crime and the prior charge was used as grounds for denaturalization as it was deemed that they had committed fraud during the naturalization process, or it was taken as prima facia evidence that they were not of good moral character.


----------



## cupper (30 Jan 2013)

This interestingly enough mirrors efforts that have been made to pass bills in the US Congress to strip Citizenship after the Al Awlaki case.


----------



## yakherder (30 Jan 2013)

Regarding offering early citizenship to residents serving in the CF:

I don't suppose this implies that they intend to actually start allowing residents to join?  I live in Quebec despite still having about a year left in the U.S. Army National Guard.  The second I get my letter of release, I'd like to go into the Canadian Forces.  I just received my residency, however, and although theoretically a resident can join if there is enough demand for their skills, when I talked to a recruiter a few months back I was told that there currently aren't any positions within the CF for which there is a high enough demand that they'd be authorized to give me a citizenship waiver.  In other words, one must be a Canadian citizen in order to join.

As for the stripping of citizenship, if someone is waging acts of war on Canada, I think I'd rather bring them back and prosecute them here than turn them over to their home country, which might just release them so they can continue waging acts of war.  I have no sympathy for them, but I don't see a significant benefit to stripping them of citizenship.  My first choice would be to put them down before it ever got to that, but I suppose you can't always come up with an excuse to shoot the people who need to be shot without breaking the rules.


----------



## ballz (30 Jan 2013)

yakherder said:
			
		

> Regarding offering early citizenship to residents serving in the CF:
> 
> I don't suppose this implies that they intend to actually start allowing residents to join?  I live in Quebec despite still having about a year left in the U.S. Army National Guard.  The second I get my letter of release, I'd like to go into the Canadian Forces.  I just received my residency, however, and although theoretically a resident can join if there is enough demand for their skills, when I talked to a recruiter a few months back I was told that there currently aren't any positions within the CF for which there is a high enough demand that they'd be authorized to give me a citizenship waiver.  In other words, one must be a Canadian citizen in order to join.



I am also wondering about that part. Don't you need to be a Canadian citizen to join? How is one supposed to serve in order to obtain citizenship faster under the current requirements.


----------



## MikeL (30 Jan 2013)

Just for sake of argument and citizenship was revoked for those who fight against Canada..

What happens to the person who is now sans citizenship?  They get sent off to any country that will take them?

As for the argument saying they should be sent back to their home country;  what if they are born and raised in Canada?  Canada would be their home country.  

Would their be any repercussions for their immediate family/dependents?


----------



## cupper (30 Jan 2013)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Just for sake of argument and citizenship was revoked for those who fight against Canada..
> 
> What happens to the person who is now sans citizenship?  They get sent off to any country that will take them?
> 
> ...



I think if this ever got to the Supreme Court the outcome would be that naturalized citizens would get stripped and could be deported back to their home country. Persons born in Canada could not have their citizenship revoked. The problem, which you pointed out, is what happens when their country of origin won't take them back.

We may need to look at building that supermax prison in the middle of the high arctic - Guantanamo North.

As for repercussions for family and dependents, it would most likely end up the way the US does in their cases, which for the most part becomes a case by case situation. The majority would be deported if they gained citizenship as a result of the person being stripped. Dependents who had citizenship independent of the person in question would likely be able keep it (possibly though a court challenge). Dependents born in the country would remain citizens.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jan 2013)

A nice minimum security prison say 150m NW of Churchill?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jan 2013)

cupper said:
			
		

> what happens when their country of origin won't take them back.



 They can live at the airport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal


----------



## gun runner (31 Jan 2013)

There are soldiers in our forces who are not citizens of our nation. They come from other Commonwealth countries(the only other way people can serve in a Commonwealth Armed Service), and are usually in the process of obtaining citizenship. Those members of our forces that are born citizens of Canada, and choose to fight against our forces, if not outright killed in action, can be tried for that action. I am not a lawyer, and I do not have all the answers. The Minimum security facility NW of Churchill is a great idea, and won't cost but a few hundred to build, just a good small boat! I am sure that this was the jist of this thread, "what would persons stripped of their Canadian citizenship for acts of war against Canada do?". My answer is who cares, just as long as they don't do it here. Ubique


----------



## cupper (31 Jan 2013)

I was thinking more like this:

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Ottawa,+ON,+Canada&daddr=74.324802,+-98.647041&hl=en&sll=74.307725,-98.669586&sspn=0.106602,0.517044&oq=Ottawa&t=h&mra=ls&z=3

Extra bonus, if global warming accelerates, they won't be able to walk on the ice to the mainland.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Feb 2013)

> Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said Wednesday the government should "consider" expanding a Tory MP's bill to strip Canadian citizenship from those who commit acts of terrorism.
> 
> He was speaking after confirmation Tuesday that a Lebanese-Canadian dual national was involved in the 2012 bombing of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria.
> 
> ...


CBC.ca, 6 Feb 13


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Feb 2013)

Taking a terrorists's citizenship is much more humane than killing them via predator strike.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2013)

Bump with the latest - bill passes Second reading (here's who voted which way), and moves to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for further study


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Mar 2013)

The latest in committee:


> A private member's bill that would strip citizenship from dual-nationals accused of treason hit roadblocks Tuesday, as expected.
> 
> Before the House committee on immigration, Tory MP Devinder Shory's Bill-425 encountered many of the challenges - constitutional and otherwise - legal experts had anticipated.
> 
> ...


QMI/Sun Media, 20 Mar 13


----------



## Pusser (9 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> This makes sense, Trudeau wants terrorists to keep their citizenship,



That's a pretty gross over-simplification.  I gather you would rather exile someone back to a place where they would be allowed to walk free and continue to plot ways to attrack the West?  The change to the Citizenship Act that allowed naturalized citizens to be stripped of their citizenship was ill-advised, ineffective and just plain stupid.  I have worn this country's uniform for over 30 years and was a long time Conservative supporter and forgave them many sins until they made me a second-class citizen.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 May 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> That's a pretty gross over-simplification.  I gather you would rather exile someone back to a place where they would be allowed to walk free and continue to plot ways to attrack the West?


Yes. It's better than letting them walk free *in Canada* continuing to plot ways to attack the west while living next door and collecting a government paycheck.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 May 2016)

You're not a second class citizen unless you were plotting to attack this country. I'm a first generation Canadian, and my immigrant father was more than happy to have convicted terrorists striped and booted because he valued so much what Canada has given him. The second class citizen thing is BS.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 May 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yes. It's better than letting them walk free *in Canada* continuing to plot ways to attack the west while living next door and collecting a government paycheck.



Hear, hear.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're not a second class citizen unless you were plotting to attack this country. I'm a first generation Canadian, and my immigrant father was more than happy to have convicted terrorists striped and booted because he valued so much what Canada has given him. The second class citizen thing is BS.



I am as well, and I am sure if he was still around my father would be of the same viewpoint.  

As for the second class citizen comment, Pusser, all of the mainstream parties have always made me believe they view us as such by virtue of their actions and deeds.  The Liberals and NDP in particular.


----------



## Pusser (9 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You're not a second class citizen unless you were plotting to attack this country. I'm a first generation Canadian, and my immigrant father was more than happy to have convicted terrorists striped and booted because he valued so much what Canada has given him. The second class citizen thing is BS.



It is not BS.  If you have a legal tool that you can use against one citizen, but not another, then you have two classes of citizenship and that is simply wrong.  What is BS is this idea that, "as long as you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear."  Using that argument, you should have no issue with the police searching your house on a regular basis.  After all, if you're not a criminal, what are you hiding?  Unfortunately, terrorism is only the flavour of the moment of heinous crimes.  What about child-molesters, mass murderers, jaywalkers - the list goes on.  What's to stop a government from adding to the list of crimes to warrant stripping someone's citizenship?  How does this prevent homegrown terrorists, whom I would argue are more dangerous because they're harder to identify and monitor?  

I'm not saying we should allow terrorists to walk our streets freely, but we need to use measures that are not only effective, but which are also fair and treat all citizens equally.  Rather than stripping citizens of citizenship, perhaps we should be more discerning on who becomes citizens?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 May 2016)

Your examples don't pan out Pusser. Mass-muderers, child-molesters and jaywalkers ( ???) don't seek to enter the country and obtain the benefits of citizenship for the purpose of fighting against the state itself.

You state that we should instead be more discerning on who we let become citizens. But the very essence of "moles" is to have a verifiable cover that is a perfect veneer of probity. These people specifically sent to "acquire" citizenship and infiltrate society to fight it from within will meet every single requirement for citizenship and will be exemplary citizens until "activated" thereafter. 

If we can't strip them of the citizenship to deport them after they serve their time for any crime against the state, what have we got left as option? Release after their time in and spend millions in constant surveillance for the rest of their life?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If we can't strip them of the citizenship to deport them after they serve their time for any crime against the state, what have we got left as option? Release after their time in and spend millions in constant surveillance for the rest of their life?



Execution or lifelong imprisonment without parole such as with Paul Barnardo are options (execution not really being an option in reality). 

There needs to be a difference between laws against the state and laws against persons, including in the punishments levied. While rape, murder, theft, etc are bad they are bad at an individual level. Terrorism seeks to destroy/alter a society to achieve a political goal which is a different beast. In this case, I believe that stripping a citizenship of someone for attacking society as a whole is a reasonable punishment and differs from murder, as an example, which is generally done at a personal/individual level. The grey area would be differentiating between something such as a school shooting vs terrorism.... but that's why we pay the supreme court and other levels of courts.


----------



## George Wallace (9 May 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Getting back to the topic, most of the more recent crop of deserters were people who signed up for the pay and benefits offered by the US armed forces, but declined to carry out their part of the contract when they were activated or their units called up. Coming to Canada allows them to continue their parasitical lifestyle (get welfare or other benefits while in Canada), while not offering anything back. Taxpayers in both nations have a large enough burden without having to pay for even _more_ freeloaders.
> 
> Regardless of our views of American foreign policy, military actions etc., this is essentially an issue between the American servicemember who _knowingly_ signed a contract and the United States Government as the owner of the contract. (I make an exception for draftees, who did not voluntarily sign the contract). People who behave in this manner will offer nothing to our community; best to send them back ASAP.



Not to mention that now they have an established "Track Record" which employers may not look at as being favourable.


----------



## Pusser (13 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Your examples don't pan out Pusser. Mass-muderers, child-molesters and jaywalkers ( ???) don't seek to enter the country and obtain the benefits of citizenship for the purpose of fighting against the state itself.
> 
> You state that we should instead be more discerning on who we let become citizens. But the very essence of "moles" is to have a verifiable cover that is a perfect veneer of probity. These people specifically sent to "acquire" citizenship and infiltrate society to fight it from within will meet every single requirement for citizenship and will be exemplary citizens until "activated" thereafter.
> 
> If we can't strip them of the citizenship to deport them after they serve their time for any crime against the state, what have we got left as option? Release after their time in and spend millions in constant surveillance for the rest of their life?



You're talking about people who have lied to obtain citizenship and on that issue, I think we are in agreement.  Lying in order to obtain citizenship should effectively nullify it as it should never have been granted in the first place.  This is where we need to be more discerning.  The Citizenship Act already had provisions to nullify citizenship for lying on the application.  No further changes were necessary.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 May 2016)

Lets just clear something up here.



> I swear (or affirm)
> That I will be faithful
> And bear true allegiance
> To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second
> ...



By plotting/conducting an attack against Canada, you have not born true allegiance to HM QE2, or faithfully observed the laws of Canada. Your citizenship should be forfeit, as you have broken that oath, unless in removing your citizenship it renders you stateless.


----------



## kratz (13 May 2016)

BINGO ! That's how I understand it as well. Thank you PuckChaser.


----------



## Pusser (16 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Lets just clear something up here.
> 
> By plotting/conducting an attack against Canada, you have not born true allegiance to HM QE2, or faithfully observed the laws of Canada. Your citizenship should be forfeit, as you have broken that oath, *unless in removing your citizenship it renders you stateless.*



In other words, some citizens are treated differently than others = two classes of citizenship - that which can be revoked and that which cannot.

A lot of people seem to be OK with this, presumably because it involves terrorism.  However, a law like this opens the door to future amendment to include other crimes or actions.  I don't think it is wise to open that door.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 May 2016)

You can't revoke citizenship from people who would be rendered stateless, we signed that treaty. Technically, I created 3 tiers of citizenship if you want to keep using a Liberal party line to try to defend your position. The "slippery slope" rebuttal is a fallacy, the courts would never uphold someone being booted for shoplifting or jaywalking. There is a very narrow set of crimes that this would apply to, and would stand legal test.


----------



## TCM621 (16 May 2016)

It doesn't create 2 classes of citizens. It removes citizenship that should never have been granted. Anyone who becomes a Canadian citizen swears an oath that reads 

"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."

If it can be shown that a person became a citizen while plotting against the state,  they lied on their oath and their citizenship is invalid.  I think the bar should be pretty high but I think it should be on the table. It isn't revoking citizenship so much as it is annulling it due to false pretenses.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 May 2016)

I'm a "second class citizen".  I was born in the UK.  I supported the citizenship law.  My children's circumstances are different than mine.  They were born over here.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 May 2016)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> It doesn't create 2 classes of citizens. It removes citizenship that should never have been granted. Anyone who becomes a Canadian citizen swears an oath that reads
> 
> "I swear (or affirm)
> That I will be faithful
> ...



I have a bigger problem with the court decision that allows immigrants to lie when they swear that oath and then immediately forswear it after they have been accepted as a Canadian citizen.  That demonstrates to me that they are untrustworty, unworthy and should be immediately deported.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (17 May 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I have a bigger problem with the court decision that allows immigrants to lie when they swear that oath and then immediately forswear it after they have been accepted as a Canadian citizen.  That demonstrates to me that they are untrustworty, unworthy and should be immediately deported.



I am not familiar with this decision, care to share a link?


----------



## Kirkhill (17 May 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> I am not familiar with this decision, care to share a link?



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/oath-allegiance-queen-dror-1.3343188


----------



## Pusser (17 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You can't revoke citizenship from people who would be rendered stateless, we signed that treaty. Technically, I created 3 tiers of citizenship if you want to keep using a Liberal party line to try to defend your position. The "slippery slope" rebuttal is a fallacy, the courts would never uphold someone being booted for shoplifting or jaywalking. There is a very narrow set of crimes that this would apply to, and would stand legal test.



If you can't revoke citizenship from someone who would be rendered stateless, then why should you be able to do it to someone who just happens to have a claim to citizenship elsewhere?  Normally, we would consider pawning off our problems on someone else instead of actually dealing with them a pretty unsavoury thing (think of posting a "problem" out of your unit instead of actually taking the steps to fix it).  Why wouldn't the courts uphold revoking citizenship for offences less than terrorism?  Right now, it's all about terrorism, but once a precedent is set, then there would be no stopping future Parliaments from expanding the law to include other offences.

Why not do the responsible thing and deal with our own problems.  If we accept someone as a citizen, then we have to accept the responsibility of dealing with them, should they go astray.    

I am not defending the Liberal party line.  I strongly agreed with many other aspects of the Conservative changes (e.g. more stringent testing) and I strongly disagree with allowing people to swear the oath and then immediately disavow their allegiance to Her Majesty, yet remain citizens.  However, the "slippery slope" is real.


----------



## Pusser (17 May 2016)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> It doesn't create 2 classes of citizens. It removes citizenship that should never have been granted. Anyone who becomes a Canadian citizen swears an oath that reads
> 
> "I swear (or affirm)
> That I will be faithful
> ...



That's a different issue.  The Citizenship Act already had provisions to annul citizenship for people who lied during the naturalization process.  There was no need to add revocation for terrorism.


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> ..............  Right now, it's all about terrorism, but once a precedent is set, then there would be no stopping future Parliaments from expanding the law to include other offences.
> 
> Why not do the responsible thing and deal with our own problems.  If we accept someone as a citizen, then we have to accept the responsibility of dealing with them, should they go astray.    ..................
> 
> ......................................  However, the "slippery slope" is real.




Really stretching it here, aren't you.  In all seriousness, if you want to use this as a precedent to making draconian changes further down the road in the future, then you would have more to worry about.  It would mean that we have moved into a Dictatorship or worse, and no longer a Democracy of intelligent citizens and politicians.  I find your suggestion highly unlikely.  

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this attitude that "Once a Canadian, always a Canadian" that this Government is preaching.  Complete BS.  There is one other solution to deporting "threats to our society" who have used falsehoods to gain citizenship; but we have in our democratic process done away with it -- the Death Penalty.  

Your solution, "deal with our own problems", does only one thing; it allows threats to our society to fester and spread through our penal system creating an even larger problem.  "Lance the boil" and deport the threat to their native country.  If they are natural born Canadians, sure, then they go into the penal system; but all others get deported.  These threats to our society are not going to be "one offs", but multiple threats and would become a burden on our penal system.

So....I do not hold your fears of this setting a precedent of changes to the Criminal Code of Canada some day down the road in the future that would have immigrants/migrants deported for petty theft; but I do hold a realistic fear that there are serious threats to our Western society and culture from people who want to spread their forms of barbarianism upon us.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really stretching it here, aren't you.  In all seriousness, if you want to use this as a precedent to making draconian changes further down the road in the future, then you would have more to worry about.  It would mean that we have moved into a Dictatorship or worse, and no longer a Democracy of intelligent citizens and politicians.  I find your suggestion highly unlikely.
> 
> Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this attitude that "Once a Canadian, always a Canadian" that this Government is preaching.  Complete BS.  There is one other solution to deporting "threats to our society" who have used falsehoods to gain citizenship; but we have in our democratic process done away with it -- the Death Penalty.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## PuckChaser (17 May 2016)

Rendering someone stateless is such a small possibility, the country they came from would have had to cease to exist, it's an extremely narrow set of events that must occur. Almost as narrow as someone committing an act of war against Canada. I get it Pusser, you want convicted terrorists walking around free in Canada after our courts give them a slap on the wrist. Pardon me if I think you're crazy in that thought.


----------



## Remius (17 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Rendering someone stateless is such a small possibility, the country they came from would have had to cease to exist, it's an extremely narrow set of events that must occur. Almost as narrow as someone committing an act of war against Canada. I get it Pusser, you want convicted terrorists walking around free in Canada after our courts give them a slap on the wrist. Pardon me if I think you're crazy in that thought.



That isn't at all what he was saying.  I think he wants a law that applies to every Canadian.  My belief is that every Canadian should be equal under the law.  This law does not meet that criteria.


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> That isn't at all what he was saying.  I think he wants a law that applies to every Canadian.  My belief is that every Canadian should be equal under the law.  This law does not meet that criteria.



I am sure the Law will apply equally to "every" Canadian.  Due process would have to be followed in presentation of evidence to the Court.  The sentence is what we are really discussing.  If a migrant/immigrant who has been found to have acquired Canadian Citizenship under false pretenses, then the sentencing and stripping of that Citizenship would be perfectly legal in my eyes.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 May 2016)

You misunderstand the concept of equality before the law.

The concept means that any two citizens found to be in the same objective circumstances, where those circumstances lead to a consequence before the law are treated exactly the same way. It does not mean that every one gets treated the same regardless of circumstances. For instance, I cannot claim government assistance because I earn enough money. Yet I am equal before that law with the less fortunate Canadian who qualifies.

A Canadian citizen by birth is NOT in the same circumstances as a Canadian who acquired Canadian citizenship after coming over into Canada and acquiring it through time and choice, made by swearing an oath to the Country, and who does not renounce his/her previous citizenship.


----------



## Remius (17 May 2016)

That does not work in the case of a Canadian born in Canada who happens to have dual citizenship.  He too can have his citizenship stripped whereas I cannot.  Ever. Regardless of what I do.  Ergo, we are not equal under the law.

A quick google search defines four dimensions of equality under the law as it applies to the Charter of Rights.

Equality before the law is equality in the administration of justice, where all individuals are subject to the same criminal laws in the same manner  by law enforcement and the courts.
Equality under the law is equality in the substance of the law, where the content of the law is equal and fair to everyone so that everyone experiences the same result.
Equal benefit of the law ensures that benefits imposed by law will be proportionate.
Equal protection of the law ensure that the protections imposed by law will be proportionate so that the human dignity of every person is equally safeguarded by the law.

I would say that that law is missing a few of those.

Unless we are saying that a Canadian born here is diffrent than a Canadian born here but with dual citizenship and is different than a Canadian not born here but naturalised with another citizenship.  But I suppose a Canadian not born here who renounces his other citizenship formally is good to go then?


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> That does not work in the case of a Canadian born in Canada who happens to have dual citizenship.  He too can have his citizenship stripped whereas I cannot.  Ever. Regardless of what I do.  Ergo, we are not equal under the law.
> 
> A quick google search defines four dimensions of equality under the law as it applies to the Charter of Rights.
> 
> ...



I do not see the law missing any of those.  

These two points do not mean that all sentencing for each individual will be identical:

Equal benefit of the law ensures that benefits imposed by law will be proportionate.
Equal protection of the law ensure that the protections imposed by law will be proportionate so that the human dignity of every person is equally safeguarded by the law.

If in the end, after due process of the Law (equality in the administration of justice, where all individuals are subject to the same criminal laws in the same manner  by law enforcement and the courts.), a person is sentenced proportionate to the Law, which may mean that their citizenship is stripped from them; then it is just.


----------



## Remius (17 May 2016)

This essay actually goes into some detail as to why the legislation is faulty and open to challenge.

http://www.queensu.ca/lawjournal/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.qljwww/files/files/issues/03-Macklin.pdf

Provides some come charter issues as well. 

Not a bad read.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 May 2016)

As far as I'm concerned, I DGAF for a "Canadian" that engages in terrorist activities.   Do so, get convicted fair and square and if you're a dual, you lose your citizenship with a one way ticket to your country of origin.  Too many bleeding hearts concerned with the wrong people's rights to suit me.


----------



## Remius (17 May 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, I DGAF for a "Canadian" that engages in terrorist activities.   Do so, get convicted fair and square and if you're a dual, you lose your citizenship with a one way ticket to your country of origin.  Too many bleeding hearts concerned with the wrong people's rights to suit me.



To be honest neither do I.  But i do care how Canadian citizenship is applied to all, not just the select lucky who were born here and have only one citizenship.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 May 2016)

When did 75% of the population of the country become "the select lucky" because they have a single citizenship and were born Canadians?

BTW, here's an interesting little twist on Bill C-24: You can strip Canadian citizenship from dual citizens or from Canadians eligible for dual citizenship. Guess what: Under the Citizenship laws of France, that means that just about every French Canadian could be stripped of Canadian citizenship, as we (I am included) can fairly easily produce the genealogy that proves we are direct descendants of French citizens, by our ancestors at the time of the conquest. We are allowed to claim our French citizenship if we want. Remember Governor-General Jean? She had obtained her French citizenship under that French law.


----------



## Remius (17 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> When did 75% of the population of the country become "the select lucky" because they have a single citizenship and were born Canadians?
> 
> BTW, here's an interesting little twist on Bill C-24: You can strip Canadian citizenship from dual citizens or from Canadians eligible for dual citizenship. Guess what: Under the Citizenship laws of France, that means that just about every French Canadian could be stripped of Canadian citizenship, as we (I am included) can fairly easily produce the genealogy that proves we are direct descendants of French citizens, by our ancestors at the time of the conquest. We are allowed to claim our French citizenship if we want. Remember Governor-General Jean? She had obtained her French citizenship under that French law.



I just checked the French citizenship requirements and none of that is there.  And Jean got her citizenship through her husband.  Where did you get that info from?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 May 2016)

It was brought into the French law with the amendments to the Citizenship Act of France enacted in 2005 (or 2004, not quite sure).

The amendment provides that any person who can demonstrate that they are the ancestors of someone born in France may claim citizenship. Those type of rules are called the "law of return". I believe Italy has the same.

There are some contradiction in the official interpretation of that law, as the French Prime Minister mentioned in a speech in Quebec City in 2006 (for the 400th anniversary of the city) that all French Canadians and Acadians descendants of the colonial regime will always be "French citizens", while the Consul general in Quebec city said that the law did not apply to people here at the time of the conquest. 

There is a test case making its way before the French Tribunal administratif.

As for Michaelle Jean, yes, she got it as a result of her marriage, but it was under the same law, i.e. the French Citizenship Act. That's all I was driving at, but agree I expressed myself poorly and it gave the impression that I meant she proved descent from French born ancestors.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... The amendment provides that any person who can demonstrate that they are the ancestors of someone born in France may claim citizenship. Those type of rules are called the "law of return". I believe Italy has the same ...


For Italy, the only "ancestors" they count for potential citizenship is parents - and only if the parents register the birth of their child with Italian authorities (usually municipal) within a certain timeframe after birth.


----------



## Remius (17 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It was brought into the French law with the amendments to the Citizenship Act of France enacted in 2005 (or 2004, not quite sure).
> 
> The amendment provides that any person who can demonstrate that they are the ancestors of someone born in France may claim citizenship. Those type of rules are called the "law of return". I believe Italy has the same.
> 
> ...



Right now aside from naturalisation there are only four methods.

Marriage
Parents (only one and must be obtained before the age of 18)
Birth and,
Military service

There was a case of a Quebec resident trying to use the old pre conquest stuff but was shot down in 2010. 

See here: https://www.causes.com/causes/81087/updates/415953


----------



## Pusser (18 May 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Rendering someone stateless is such a small possibility, the country they came from would have had to cease to exist, it's an extremely narrow set of events that must occur. Almost as narrow as someone committing an act of war against Canada. *I get it Pusser, you want convicted terrorists walking around free in Canada after our courts give them a slap on the wrist.* Pardon me if I think you're crazy in that thought.



Please do not put words in my mouth.  I have never said any such thing!  Furthermore, I don't think it is appropriate to insult the integrity of someone who has served this country with loyalty and dedication for over 30 years because he happens to disagree with a bad law.

All criminals and enemies of the state should be punished to the fullest extent. I am fully supportive of stronger measure to deal with terrorists.  I just don't think that revoking the citizenship of  people whom have been *properly* naturalized is the best way of doing this because it paints with too broad a brush.  I do not disagree with the sentiment of dealing harshly with terrorists.  I just disagree with this method.

A free and just society cannot remain free and just if it does not treat all of its citizens equally.  Many people seem to be OK with the Conservative change (which actually has been reversed), because after all, we're dealing with terrorists and terrorists are bad people.  I simply cannot agree with a philosophy that differentiates between different types of bad people.  Drug dealers are bad people too (and proportionately have done much more damage to this country than any terrorist).  Would the folks who are happy to have two classes of citizens be happy to have the police regularly search their houses to prove that they are not drug dealers?  After all, if you're not a drug dealer, what have you got to worry about?  It's the same idea.


----------



## Pusser (18 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am sure the Law will apply equally to "every" Canadian.  Due process would have to be followed in presentation of evidence to the Court.  The sentence is what we are really discussing.  If a migrant/immigrant who has been found to have acquired Canadian Citizenship under false pretenses, then the sentencing and stripping of that Citizenship would be perfectly legal in my eyes.



You've been misinterpreting what I've been saying.  I have absolutely no problem annulling the citizenship of people who have gained it under false pretenses.  However, the Citizenship Act already had provisions for that long before the Conservatives amended it to include revocation for terrorist offences.  There was no need for a change of this nature.


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> You've been misinterpreting what I've been saying.  I have absolutely no problem annulling the citizenship of people who have gained it under false pretenses.  However, the Citizenship Act already had provisions for that long before the Conservatives amended it to include revocation for terrorist offences.  There was no need for a change of this nature.



Well.  At the same time, the Charter of Human Rights and our "anti-Hate" Laws protect the LGBT community, but the Liberal Government is currently in the process of passing a Bill to bring into existence a redundant Law to protect them specifically.  Looks like our Government (past and present) can not fully comprehend the Laws that already exist, so they feel compelled to create redundancies that will cover minute details.


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Please do not put words in my mouth.



Sorry, but I too feel that the nuances are there in you argument.


----------



## Remius (18 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.  At the same time, the Charter of Human Rights and our "anti-Hate" Laws protect the LGBT community, but the Liberal Government is currently in the process of passing a Bill to bring into existence a redundant Law to protect them specifically.  Looks like our Government (past and present) can not fully comprehend the Laws that already exist, so they feel compelled to create redundancies that will cover minute details.



Lol you are correct, it's funny because that is the same argument is used to rail against bill C-51... [

To be clear though, I think they are updating the criminal code and the Canadian Human Rights Bill to include gender identy.  I believe both do not have that listed.


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2016)

"Sex" is already on the books, in describing types of discrimination.  Are they now going to amend the books to include "Lack of Sex" in describing gender?   >

When it comes to "citizenship" we seem to be concentrating on "terrorism" in this discussion, where I believe it is more appropriate to be focusing on "violent acts contrary to our society's Laws", or something along those lines, which would include murder, violent crime that cause injury or a threat to the public good, membership in international criminal syndicates, etc.   Terrorism is only one target to focus on, but there are many others that are just as serious a threat to our culture and society.


----------



## Pusser (18 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I too feel that the nuances are there in you argument.



Then please read them again.  I have never said that, nor have I ever believed that.  Just because I don't believe in capital punishment for parking offences doesn't mean that I don't think people who can't park between the lines shouldn't have their cars towed.


----------



## Pusser (18 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> When it comes to "citizenship" we seem to be concentrating on "terrorism" in this discussion, where I believe it is more appropriate to be focusing on "violent acts contrary to our society's Laws", or something along those lines, which would include murder, violent crime that cause injury or a threat to the public good, membership in international criminal syndicates, etc.   Terrorism is only one target to focus on, but there are many others that are just as serious a threat to our culture and society.



And such is the slippery slope to which I referred earlier.  Where would you stop?  Who decides where we stop?  What are the criteria for determining what is a threat to our society?


----------



## George Wallace (18 May 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Then please read them again.  I have never said that, nor have I ever believed that.  Just because I don't believe in capital punishment for parking offences doesn't mean that I don't think people who can't park between the lines shouldn't have their cars towed.





			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> And such is the slippery slope to which I referred earlier.  Where would you stop?  Who decides where we stop?  What are the criteria for determining what is a threat to our society?




What slippery slope?  The LAW does discriminate between what real threats are and what are trivial or minor offences.  Your constant going back to point out that such things as a parking offence being brought into a Court of Law and resulting in a person losing their citizenship are completely absurd.  You constantly allude to these trivial examples and they are absolutely absurd.  Can you not concentrate on the real facts, and not throw in absurdities?


----------



## Pusser (18 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What slippery slope?  The LAW does discriminate between what real threats are and what are trivial or minor offences.  Your constant going back to point out that such things as a parking offence being brought into a Court of Law and resulting in a person losing their citizenship are completely absurd.  You constantly allude to these trivial examples and they are absolutely absurd.  Can you not concentrate on the real facts, and not throw in absurdities?



I throw in the absurdities to show how absurd this whole issue is.  Yes, the law does in most cases discriminate between what are real threats and what are trivialities.  However, this change opened a door for expansion without limit.  The original proposal was that it only applied to terrorism offences and that was it.  One of my original points was that this could expand to other offences, to which many replied, no, it would only apply to terrorism (heinous crime of the moment).  Yet you yourself just advocated for expanding it to cover other serious offences - THAT is the slippery slope.  Where does it stop?  Who decides?  

I think I'm done with it.  Obviously some folks are intransigent on this issue (myself included) and it's apparent that I'm not going to convince a fair number of others that this change in law was a bad idea.  It's all moot anyway as the law has actually been changed, so now we are just going around in circles.

But just to be clear:  I believe that Canadian citizenship is a precious thing and I am immensely proud to travel the world with "CANADA" on my shoulder.  My loyalty should not be in question.  I also believe that many other aspects of the Citizenship Act are too lenient and that we grant citizenship too easily in many cases, often times to some people who don't deserve it.  Nevertheless, making ineffective and unnecessary changes to a law (that already had provisions to deal with those sorts who would lie or misrepresent themselves) which really only divided Canadians, was a silly thing to do.  I am also not soft on terrorism or any other serious crime, but I also believe in the equal application of justice.  We need to apply justice to all bad people in the same way, not divide them into groups.  By the way, a fair number of constitutional scholars agree with me on this one.  I doubt that the Conservative change would ever has survived a Constitutional challenge.


----------



## YZT580 (18 May 2016)

Pusser, if we still had the death penalty for treason I would concur completely. People who come to this country, become citizens and then declare war upon us should not be here. If they performed these acts in Syria or Iran against our forces you would certainly help in loading the aircraft or the planning the attack to eradicate them.  Apart from geography, what is the difference?  Execute the bastards.  Since we can't do that here in Canada, kick them out.  But don't put them in a facility where they can infect those around them with their own personal social disease.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (18 May 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What slippery slope?  The LAW does discriminate between what real threats are and what are trivial or minor offences.  Your constant going back to point out that such things as a parking offence being brought into a Court of Law and resulting in a person losing their citizenship are completely absurd.  You constantly allude to these trivial examples and they are absolutely absurd.  Can you not concentrate on the real facts, and not throw in absurdities?



One slippery slope lies in the definition of "terrorism". In the context of this law, terrorism is clearly linked to islamic extremism. However, what if how we view terrorism changes? Say, for example, in 10 years "terrorism" or an attack on the state is extended to include attacks on the government as an attack on the nation? What of eco-terrorism? what of mass shootings? "Terrorism" is for all intents and purposes an abstract concept that changes over time (terrorism isn't new after all). While you may consider terrorism to be people blowing up a building or conducting an attack, another may consider homophobia or islamophobia an act of terrorism.

That's why the "war on terror" is inherently stupid... how can you fight an abstract concept?


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 May 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I throw in the absurdities to show how absurd this whole issue is.



Reductio ad absurdum


----------

