Politics in 2016

[Loachman]

I hold dual citizenship. I have been Canadian since 1977 - longer than many who were born here. This is irrelevant, from my point of view.

Those who specifically misrepresent themselves during the citizenship process, or those who recant their oath/solemn affirmation following their citizenship ceremony, should be evaluated and stripped of the Canadian citizenship that they did not rightfully earn.

Not all dual citizens who commit acts of treason obtain their Canadian citizenship for that purpose, though - and, really, why would anybody bother if their intent is to commit an attack? It offers no tactical advantage. A foreign-born child could obtain citizenship and be radicalized many years later - there would be no intent to deceive at the time.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That's civilization bud.

It's not civilization chief, it's weakness and cowardice.
Those rules haven't been in place since the beginning of time, in the greater scheme of the universe they're actually pretty new. Rules change.

People don't kill POWs or does that offend  your sensibilities as well?

This is a really stupid question and slight Altair, I'm actually surprised to hear it from you.  Are you just having a brain fart or are you really trying to derail the conversation in such a childish manner?

 

[jmt18325]

And can you explain your stand?  Is Canadian Citizenship a "RIGHT" or a "PRIVILEGE"?

There should be no distinction between Canadians that were born here, and Canadians that came here.  The only distinction that I agree with (as always existed) is the idea of fraudulent citizenship, as fraudulent citizenship was never valid to begin with.  That is, if you lied to get citizenship, that citizenship doesn't apply (it's the reason that I believe people who renounce their oath to the Queen immediately after should have their citizenship revoked at the same time).  If it can be proven that someone became Canadian for the purpose of terrorizing the people of Canada (why would you go through the trouble to do that, exactly?), then their citizenship is already forfeit, as they lied when the stated their reasons for becoming Canadian.  This is not necessarily the case for all non native Canadians who commit acts of terror, but may be the case for some. 

My position makes sense today.  Lets say that the Canadian born individual who attacked the CF members in Toronto is eventually charged with terror (it's important to note that at this point he hasn't been).  What do we do with him?  How is he any different from a new Canadian who commits an act of terror against Canadians? It doesn't make any sense.

 

[George Wallace]

jmt18325

You contradicted yourself in that post.

 

[Remius]

By pointing out the aspects of 'Dual Citizenship' and new Canadian's that have been granted this citizenship by dishonest means you have effectively proved that 'A Canadian, is a Canadian, is a Canadian' is false.

.

It actually does not prove that.  Those people that gain citizenship through fraudulent means were never Canadians to begin with. And there is plenty of jurisprudence to back that up.

 

[Journeyman]

You are still not understanding agreeing with what I am saying.

Fixed that for you.  :nod:

... I believe they intended it solely for "terrorism." However, for the reasons I initially posted, this is a symbolic law and not very practical. It's designed to rile people up, and put the Liberals (or the NDP) in a position where it appears they're "siding with the terrorists."

So the legislation had no basis in removing convicted terrorists from Canada, but rather solely to "rile people up" and make Liberals/NDP look bad?!  Let's go back to a previous post on "naivety."

And you have clearly bought it, hook, line and sinker.

Yes, we see that a lot from some posters here.

First, the definition of "terrorism" is nebulous.

Terrorism, an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of intimidating the public "…with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act." Activities recognized as criminal within this context include death and bodily harm with the use of violence; endangering a person’s life; risks posed to the health and safety of the public; significant property damage; and interference or disruption of essential services, facilities or systems.
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 83.01
Google "nebulous." The Criminal Code seems pretty clear the way I'm reading it.

We've already seen the RCMP define certain environmental groups as potential "terror" threats....

Yes, those elements of environmental groups advocating or conducting extremist measures incorporating criminal violence; that's the job of our security services. They do not target environmental groups for surveillance or oppression, regardless of what the tinfoil hat folks will tell you.



Also, "threat" and "risk" are not synonymous; they have specific, non-interchangeable meanings. I'd hazard a guess that most INTREPS regarding environmentalists would cite only a very specific segment, and even then refer to a risk rather than a threat....unless expressly warranted otherwise.

 

[a_majoor]

With all of the hullabaloo about the the Liberals not balancing the budget, here's an article that uses the CCPA's budget for ideas on how to stay in the black. Unsurprisingly, the federal government is the smallest it's been since World War II, so this idea that somehow the government is getting bigger must have come solely from the Toronto Sun.

Now a lot of you with disagree with these initiatives, but let's remember the military is set to lose about $400 million in funding this year as well. If we could eliminate the deficit with these ideas (that only really affect wealthier Canadians and corporations who have seen their taxes decline to historic lows), the military wouldn't have to suffer either.

As the article states, we have a revenue problem, not a spending problem.


There are also some graphs on the link that help drive the point home. For example, it's clear that lowering corporate tax rates didn't result in corporations investing in more jobs in Canada. Rather Canadian corporations have been hoarding the money, often offshore. We would be crazy not to tax it.


http://www.pressprogress.ca/5_places_where_canada_finance_minister_can_find_tens_of_billions_of_dollars_for_his_budget

Nope, we have a spending problem, and have had one for years.

Corporations are hoarding their money because of perceived economic uncertainty; why invest if there is a good chance you will loose it? The corporate financial officers have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders as well, outside of the good business practice of looking for positive returns.

You may also note that the worst year of the Great Depression (1938, a good 9 years after the start of the depression) was created by the "capital strike" as business refused to make any more investments due to the chaotic environment the "New Dealers" had created in the economy. Canadian companies have decades of historical data and experience to look at and make forecasts, plus the experience of Ontario under both the NDP and the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals (and now the Alberta NDP) to suggest how the future is going to unfold between now and 2019.

Finally, while I'm not too surprised by your assertion that we can simply help ourselves to someone else's money if we don't like what they choose to do with it, Margaret Thatcher pointed out the ultimate fallacy of that idea:

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money"

 

[Altair]

It's not just dual citizens who lose their citizenship ship, or immigrants

The tories tried to take away the citizenship of one of the Toronto 18 terrorists even though he was Canadian born. His parents were algierian if I remember correctly.

Now I have no love for someone who wants to blow up the middle of Toronto,  but to strip the citizenship of someone born in Canada and make them a citizen of a country they have never stepped foot in is a dangerous precedent

 

[jmt18325]

jmt18325

You contradicted yourself in that post.

A citizen that obtained their citizenship fraudulently was never a citizen in the first place.  That's the way it's viewed under the law.  I should have been more clear with my language.

 

[George Wallace]

It's not just dual citizens who lose their citizenship ship, or immigrants

The tories tried to take away the citizenship of one of the Toronto 18 terrorists even though he was Canadian born. His parents were algierian if I remember correctly.

Now I have no love for someone who wants to blow up the middle of Toronto,  but to strip the citizenship of someone born in Canada and make them a citizen of a country they have never stepped foot in is a dangerous precedent

This is not a precedence.  It has already happened with a criminal born in Canada of Indian Embassy staff, who became Canadian citizens.  His case was decided upon; to send him to India.  His criminal activity was enough to have his claim to Canadian Citizenship denied.  Your defence of a convicted 'terrorist' should result in more stringent following of that precedence.

 

[dapaterson]

Now I have no love for someone who wants to blow up the middle of Toronto,

You just lost the Prairie vote, right there...


Intersting how this discussion studiously avoids looking at the bars many folks will visit on Thursday, and their role as a source of funds for terrorists.  No one ever talks about stripping citizenship/deporting Irish/Canadian dual nationals who provided material support to the IRA.

 

[Loachman]

jmt18325

You contradicted yourself in that post.

He seems to be saying exactly what I did, just prior.

 

[George Wallace]

A citizen that obtained their citizenship fraudulently was never a citizen in the first place.  That's the way it's viewed under the law.  I should have been more clear with my language.

For the most part, that is exactly my view. 

It is rather naive to think that people are not using deception to attain Canadian Citizenship and then conduct Criminal, terrorist, or even espionage activities against Canada.

 

[jmt18325]

He seems to be saying exactly what I did, just prior.

And to top it off, I'd completely missed your post 

 

[Remius]

This is not a precedence.  It has already happened with a criminal born in Canada of Indian Embassy staff, who became Canadian citizens.  His case was decided upon; to send him to India.  His criminal activity was enough to have his claim to Canadian Citizenship denied.  Your defence of a convicted 'terrorist' should result in more stringent following of that precedence.

. Except that Mr. Balhokat was not a citizen.  And he never applied for it either.  At least not until he faced deportation.  Not at all the same thing.  There was no citizenship to strip.

 

[Kilo_302]

Nope, we have a spending problem, and have had one for years.

Corporations are hoarding their money because of perceived economic uncertainty; why invest if there is a good chance you will loose it? The corporate financial officers have a fiduciary duty to the shareholders as well, outside of the good business practice of looking for positive returns.

You may also note that the worst year of the Great Depression (1938, a good 9 years after the start of the depression) was created by the "capital strike" as business refused to make any more investments due to the chaotic environment the "New Dealers" had created in the economy. Canadian companies have decades of historical data and experience to look at and make forecasts, plus the experience of Ontario under both the NDP and the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals (and now the Alberta NDP) to suggest how the future is going to unfold between now and 2019.

Finally, while I'm not too surprised by your assertion that we can simply help ourselves to someone else's money if we don't like what they choose to do with it, Margaret Thatcher pointed out the ultimate fallacy of that idea:

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money"

I'm not sure I understand your motivation. Do you think if we cut program spending further our economy will grow?

Do you think it will be the type of growth that would improve the lives of all Canadians, not just the higher earners?

Are you concerned for lower income Canadians?

What you've provided above are talking points that seem to disagree with straightforward data that clearly shows our government has been shrinking, not growing. This means spending has been decreasing as well.

You're clearly against welfare, but corporate welfare is one of the biggest net losses of revenue in Canada. This takes the form of tax breaks, tax loopholes and what can only be described as handouts. Meanwhile corporations operating here use public roads, hire employees who have public healthcare and education.

Are you suggesting that a 15% corporate tax rate is too high?

 

[George Wallace]

. Except that Mr. Balhokat was not a citizen.  And he never applied for it either.  At least not until he faced deportation.  Not at all the same thing.  There was no citizenship to strip.

???

The case of Deepan Budlakoti:  http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/05/canadian-citizen-asks-court-to-declare-him%E2%80%A6-canadian-citizen

Born in Canada, stripped of citizenship

Deepan Budlakoti was born in October, 1989, at Ottawa's Grace Hospital, and issued an Ontario birth certificate. His parents, who had come to Canada from India in 1985, had been working for the Indian Ambassador as cooks, gardeners and cleaners until about four months before Deepan was born. In June, 1989, they began working for a medical doctor in Nepean, and it is that doctor's address that appears on Deepan's certificate of live birth.

 

[Kilo_302]

???

The case of Deepan Budlakoti:  http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/05/canadian-citizen-asks-court-to-declare-him%E2%80%A6-canadian-citizen

George you just quoted Rabble.ca! Ahhhhhhh!!!!

 

[dapaterson]

???

The case of Deepan Budlakoti:  http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/05/canadian-citizen-asks-court-to-declare-him%E2%80%A6-canadian-citizen

Read up on international conventions.  Children of people with diplomatic status do not receive birthright citizenship.

So, for example, if the Canadian Defence Attaché in Washington (who holds diplomatic status) were to give birth in Maryland, their child would have an American birth certificate, but no American citizenship.

In that case, his parents had diplomatic status when he was born. Therefore he never had Canadian citizenship - the passport he was oncetwice issued was issued in error.

EDIT: number of passports

 

[Altair]

Read up on international conventions.  Children of people with diplomatic status do not receive birthright citizenship.

So, for example, if the Canadian Defence Attaché in Washington (who holds diplomatic status) were to give birth in Maryland, their child would have an American birth certificate, but no American citizenship.

In that case, his parents had diplomatic status when he was born. Therefore he never had Canadian citizenship - the passport he was once issued was issued in error.

interesting.

So was the case of the Toronto 18 a first then in terms of trying to remove the citizenship of a Canadian born terrorist?