[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

Because, at least in the one you provided me from my own government, a citizen born in the US (to American parents) could easily live their entire lives without fulfilling any of those 'responsibilities' with no ill consequence.  On the flipside, the naturalised ones will(are) often be lambasted for failing to live up to such things.

Unless I am mistaken, you can not be stripped or your last "citizenship".  If you are an American citizen with no other nationality who commits treason, you will be jailed or executed.  I believe American citizens participating in a war against the US were executed without trial in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I know CC & others have a problem with expelling someone from Canada and removing his citizenship.  I really don't.  There will always be two classes of citizens, and those born in a country have inherently more rights than those who were naturalized.  It's really a minor issue.  Citizenship is a priviledge.  If we could remove the citizenship of someone fighting against Canada and leave him without any nationality, I'd do it.  Imho, that person does not deserve to be canadian.  But we're likely to just emprison (or execute in other countries) that person.  For a year.

[crazy canuck]

When one focuses on people who wish to make a life in the country, it turns out that refugees are the best candidates - they need to make a go of it here.

if you need a qualified workforce, immigrants are qualified now.  Refugees are qualified in 30 years.

that's why we need both, within limits of our capacity to process applications and integrate them in our society.

I had no idea it took a refugee child at least 3x longer to finish grade school and university than non refugees.  And immigrants who come with training in their home country often take a number of years to become qualified in this jurisdiction.  Tech is one of few sectors where your statement regarding immigrants being immediately ready and available is valid. 

[crazy canuck]

Fuck off, you can't even define what it is you want me to disagree with

Now, now. No reason to be sore, just because you are caught on the horns of a dilemma. 

Yeah, my dilemma is to agree to something that is undefined or not.  Hard call there.

[crazy canuck]

There will always be two classes of citizens, and those born in a country have inherently more rights than those who were naturalized.

That does not exist now so I am not sure how it will always be the case.

[Valmy]

I dunno. Native born Americans are often "lambasted" for failing to (for example) pay taxes, serve on juries, participate in voting, respect laws, etc. etc. 

Freaking Eddie Teach!

Though he follows laws and pays taxes AFAIK.

[Malthus]

Fuck off, you can't even define what it is you want me to disagree with

Now, now. No reason to be sore, just because you are caught on the horns of a dilemma. 

Yeah, my dilemma is to agree to something that is undefined or not.  Hard call there.

Do citizens have any civic responsibilities or not? Seems it isn't necessary for us to agree on the exact ambit of the responsibilities to answer this.

Trying to hash out the exact ambit is an obvious debate rabbit-hole, particularly given you won't even agree that respect for laws is necessary! 

[dps]

Because, at least in the one you provided me from my own government, a citizen born in the US (to American parents) could easily live their entire lives without fulfilling any of those 'responsibilities' with no ill consequence.  On the flipside, the naturalised ones will(are) often be lambasted for failing to live up to such things.

I believe American citizens participating in a war against the US were executed without trial in Iraq or Afghanistan?

There may have been such persons killed in battle (though I've seen nothing about it), but they definitely weren't summarily executed. 

There will always be two classes of citizens, and those born in a country have inherently more rights than those who were naturalized. 

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, the only distinction is that a naturalized citizen can't be President--obviously a distinction that isn't going to matter to almost any naturalized citizen.

[crazy canuck]

Fuck off, you can't even define what it is you want me to disagree with

Now, now. No reason to be sore, just because you are caught on the horns of a dilemma. 

Yeah, my dilemma is to agree to something that is undefined or not.  Hard call there.

Do citizens have any civic responsibilities or not? Seems it isn't necessary for us to agree on the exact ambit of the responsibilities to answer this.

Trying to hash out the exact ambit is an obvious debate rabbit-hole, particularly given you won't even agree that respect for laws is necessary! 

If it is such a simple question, perhaps you can tell me what you mean by civic responsibilities.  There is a lot you included in your last attempt that I disagreed with.

[garbon]

Unless I am mistaken, you can not be stripped or your last "citizenship".  If you are an American citizen with no other nationality who commits treason, you will be jailed or executed.  I believe American citizens participating in a war against the US were executed without trial in Iraq or Afghanistan?

But that's my point...naturalised ones, unless they've renounced their other citizenship, always run that risk.

[viper37]

I had no idea it took a refugee child at least 3x longer to finish grade school and university than non refugees. 

Effet de toge, again.

You know as well as I do that it takes roughly 3 generations for Canada to get its investment back from accepting refugees.

They don't arrive here with all the necessary skills our labour market needs, we accept them for humanitarian reasons.

They may not speak English or French.  They may have inadequate university training and be unwilling to retake all their studies.  Children who do not know english or french very well have an handicap in school are unlikely to reach higher level of studies.  The grandchild of the refugee is the one most contribution to our society, in all aspects, since he is no different than anyone else born here.

And immigrants who come with training in their home country often take a number of years to become qualified in this jurisdiction.

An immigrant applying here for economic immigration must proove he has a job before being accepted.  It's unlikely a doctor in France would apply for a taxi driver job in Montreal before moving here with his family.  But a Brazilian homosexal truck driver might be willing to take its chances in the first country who says yes.

  Tech is one of few sectors where your statement regarding immigrants being immediately ready and available is valid. 

it's an average.

There are reasons why we need immigrants able to work now: immediate shortage of labour.
There are reasons whe we also need refugees, aside from helping them: low skilled jobs for the 1st, often the 2nd generation too, and adjustment to market forces by the 3rd, i.e., just like other pre-established citizens.

the point is, immigrants are selected.  We recruit them like a business recruits its workforce.  If you need a lawyer to help in your practice, you don't hire an accountant.  You hire a lawyer.

With refugees, it's more like a lotery.  We (generally) check them for security reasons, but their skills may or may not be adapted to what our society needs right away.

But we also need to replenish our population and think long term.  We can't select enough economical immigrants for that, people who have a good paying job and a bright future in their own country are less likely to seek a job elsewhere in the world than those facing an immediate threat to their lives.

Immigration is an economical issue first and foremost.

[viper37]

Unless I am mistaken, you can not be stripped or your last "citizenship".  If you are an American citizen with no other nationality who commits treason, you will be jailed or executed.  I believe American citizens participating in a war against the US were executed without trial in Iraq or Afghanistan?

But that's my point...naturalised ones, unless they've renounced their other citizenship, always run that risk.

On the one hand, you risk being executed by a drone strike.
On the other hand, you risk being deported to your other country, without possibility of coming back.

So, really, if you betray England- sorry, the United Kingdom - , which do you choose? (assume by that point, you have dual citizenship)

[garbon]

The UK is kicking me out in 2020, so I don't think I have to worry about that hypothetical.

[Barrister]

The UK is kicking me out in 2020, so I don't think I have to worry about that hypothetical.

Will you have been in the country long enough to apply for permanent resident status?

[viper37]

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, the only distinction is that a naturalized citizen can't be President--obviously a distinction that isn't going to matter to almost any naturalized citizen.

In the specific case of someone with dual citizenship.

Situation:
I emigrate to the US.  After a while, I get naturalized as a citizen.  I still keep my Canadian passport.

I commit a crime against the US, say a terrorist act.  I can have my US citizenship strip from me, but I can't be stripped of both citizenship so that I am stateless.

Obviously, Canada could strip me of my citizenship while I keep my US passport, but I was assuming the crime would be committed in the "new country".


As for the drone strike, he had dual citizenship, I don't know about his son born in Colorado:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

You may be right that he wasn't summarly executed, I don't understand the legal argument against it, I am not judging on the validity - actually, I am, it was a good thing. And he was born in the US, as well as his son, also killed in a drone strike.

The deliberate target was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born radical cleric who had fled to Yemen and joined Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Mr. Awlaki was put on a so-called kill list after the administration deemed Mr. Awlaki to be a senior operational terrorist who was plotting attacks against Americans and whose capture in a remote part of Yemen was unfeasible. A legal review by the Justice Department determined that it was lawful to kill him.

[Oexmelin]

I must admit, it's unusual to find many insisting that citizens have no civic duties.

Only because the debate is framed in such ways that the failure to perform said civic duties is liable to carry a really high price. Being lambasted, vs being stripped of citizenship is really quite different. In that debate, I'd side with the "no duties" any day of the week.