[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

In my view once a person becomes a Canadian citizen then they are a citizen for all purposes for all time.

It has never been so in the past, I don't see why it should be now.  Even if you are natural born, if you own double citizenship, you can be forced to renounce it.

Yes, but the times it has not been so in the past are shameful and should not be repeated.  It is one of the reasons I have a fairly strong view about this issue. 

[Maximus]

I'm not against revokation of citizenship for certain crimes, however all citizens should be treated the same way. Where and how one was born or whether one has other relationships shouldn't be relevant.

[Josephus]

Here are my rights and responsibilities as a naturalized Canadian

According to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, citizens are:

Entitled to enjoy the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Able to vote in political elections upon reaching the age of 18 (provided they are not absent from Canada for more than 5 years and intend to resume residency in Canada).
Able to run for political office upon reaching the age of 18.
Able to obtain a Canadian passport.
Able to prevent risk of getting deported from Canada (if the subject was born outside Canada, but is naturalized).
Able to work for the Federal government (where citizenship is usually required/preferred).
Allowed to live outside Canada indefinitely while retaining the right to return.
Able to pass on Canadian citizenship to children born outside Canada (to the first generation only).

The only way to lose citizenship is if you knowingly lie in your citizenship application. (which, at least when I did mine in 82 was pretty straightforward). I know that Bill C24 or whatever it's called wants to deport Canadians convicted of a terrorism attack. They may have to change the CCRF to do that. And also, like I implied earlier, who decides what a terrorism act is? I don't know, lawyers, is that defined in law somewhere. That guy in Ottawa last year...was that terrorism or just guy-gone-nuts? I don't know.

Anyway, whatever...If I'm going to commit such an attack , I'll just renounce my other citizenship first.

[viper37]

Lying in obtaining my citizenship and committing a crime after I legally obtained my citizenship are two different things.

If you commit terrorism act against your country, I'd pretty much say you lied when you became a citizen.

Besides, there are may precedents on deportation for actions taken against the State (Patriots and FLQ notably).

[crazy canuck]

I'm not against revokation of citizenship for certain crimes, however all citizens should be treated the same way. Where and how one was born or whether one has other relationships shouldn't be relevant.

I agree.  If citizenship can be revoked for a crime that is so heinous that one can no longer be a citizen then it should be so for all citizens.  But that gets to the fundamental issue of what is really going on here.  It is much easier to make the law applicable to others.  It would be much less popular if the government could strip any citizen of their status.

[Valmy]

No you cannot voluntarily renounce your citizenship if it would leave you stateless.

[Josephus]

Lying in obtaining my citizenship and committing a crime after I legally obtained my citizenship are two different things.

If you commit terrorism act against your country, I'd pretty much say you lied when you became a citizen.

How so? I became a citizen when I was 15 or 16. It never asked me "Do you plan on becoming a terrorist?"
If, some 40 years later my political views are such that I think violence against the state is necessary, I do not see how I lied some 40 years ago.

[crazy canuck]

Lying in obtaining my citizenship and committing a crime after I legally obtained my citizenship are two different things.

If you commit terrorism act against your country, I'd pretty much say you lied when you became a citizen.

Besides, there are may precedents on deportation for actions taken against the State (Patriots and FLQ notably).

At best what you are talking about is an implied promise not to be a terrorist.  But couldn't you make that argument for all citizens?

[Josephus]

Anyone watching the debate?

(I don't mean this one on Languish )

[crazy canuck]

Anyone watching the debate?

(I don't mean this one on Languish )

This one is better. 

[Josephus]

Probably. A lot less scripted that's for sure.

[viper37]

Let's consider the alternative, as proposed by Josephus and CC.

A radical Imam enters the country with a few of his buddies.  They stay quiet for 5 years, obtain their canadian citizenship, than they start preaching their hate for western values and recruiting potential Jihad candidates.

According to you guys, when we finally have sufficient proofs to arrest him, this guy should be in jail for a couple of years, while other members of his cell carry on their duties.  Once released, he repeats the same as he ever did, recruiting others into terrorist cells, eventually striking at Canada or one of NATO allies.

I think I'd much rather remove the citizenship to such people even before they reach the terrorist stage, but committing or inciting terrorist acts against the country is grounds to be deported, imho.  It means you lied on your application to become a citizen of this country and as such, it is worth nothing.

[viper37]

At best what you are talking about is an implied promise not to be a terrorist.  But couldn't you make that argument for all citizens?

Natural borns are not required to swear an oath, unlike those who come later.  It seems we already have 2 kinds of citizenship...
I wish we could remove their citizenship, even when they have only one, but it's contrary to some treaties we signed.

[crazy canuck]

Lets use another example.  A war breaks out with an Asian country.  The government of the day believes, wrongly, that all Canadians who are immigrants or the children of immigrants from that Asian country are untrustworthy and should be rounded up and deported.

[Barrister]

Lets use another example.  A war breaks out with an Asian country.  The government of the day believes, wrongly, that all Canadians who are immigrants or the children of immigrants from that Asian country are untrustworthy and should be rounded up and deported.

ZOMG what an enormous straw man!

Unlike the WWII detention of Japanese Canadians (and unlike the WWI detention of Ukrainian Canadians) what we're discussing is people actually convicted of the offence of committing terrorist offences against their supposedly adopted Canada.  There's no assumptions involved here.