Are you a second class Canadian?

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by Manic!

What if you move to another country for work and have kid with a woman from that country?

Second this. I've said it before, unless you can make sure that EVERY of your love ones would stay ONLY Canadian, they run at the risk of this BS law.

[RFlush]

Originally Posted by Manic!

What if you move to another country for work and have kid with a woman from that country?

Then you apply for your kids Canadian citizenship and then sort out whatever visa needed for your child to stay in that country with you.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by RFlush

Then you apply for your kids Canadian citizenship and then sort out whatever visa needed for your child to stay in that country with you.

This is not possible if the kid qualifies for citizenship and you want the kid to reside in that country.

Child citizenship is either jus sanguinis or jus soli. The citizenship qualification is the first thing embassy checks when you register for newborn abroad. But what to apply is not optional. Same goes with cdn citizenship. If the kid qualifies for citizenship, you cannot apply permanent resident status for the kid as he's a citizen and doesn't qualify for such visa.

My son was born in us as wife was attending doctoral program there. At first, We tried to not applying his us citizenship to avoid the whole tax ordeal, but it's not possible to get him a U.S. Visa as consulate sees him as U.S. citizen on the jus soli ground. No but or ifs. They flat out refused to do it and issued him a U.S. Passport instead even when we stated we didn't want his American citizenship.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Mikoyan

I'm happy to even *find* an example.

Doesn't this just support the point that this will not affect many people? Especially considering this guy has been held on BS charges and the Canadian gov't has been trying to help him, not trying to use this to revoke his citizenship?

Originally Posted by Mikoyan

He was being accused of being a member and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood.

Which as far as I can work out, is only considered a terrorist group by Egypt, not Canada.

Originally Posted by Mikoyan

Accused of threatening Egypt's national security, and creating a "terrorist media network."

A media network doesn't fall under A or C...

Originally Posted by Mikoyan

You don't have to actually take part in an actual successful event. Attempting, planning, helping or encouraging is enough.

Which imo is completely valid. If somebody attempts or assists in acts of terrorism they should be held accountable. I fail to see how people attempting/planning/helping/encouraging shouldn't be treated the same as anyone who does kill or injure significant numbers of people. However, as far as I can tell, the Muslim Brotherhood hasn't committed or attempted any terrorist acts since the late 70's, so again this wouldn't apply.

[Nomomo]

Hope you don't torrent
UOTE=Pidish;8645418]unless you're involved in some kind of illegal activity, why would this even matter to you?[/QUOTE]

[RFlush]

Originally Posted by Hehe

This is not possible if the kid qualifies for citizenship and you want the kid to reside in that country.

Child citizenship is either jus sanguinis or jus soli. The citizenship qualification is the first thing embassy checks when you register for newborn abroad. But what to apply is not optional. Same goes with cdn citizenship. If the kid qualifies for citizenship, you cannot apply permanent resident status for the kid as he's a citizen and doesn't qualify for such visa.

My son was born in us as wife was attending doctoral program there. At first, We tried to not applying his us citizenship to avoid the whole tax ordeal, but it's not possible to get him a U.S. Visa as consulate sees him as U.S. citizen on the jus soli ground. No but or ifs. They flat out refused to do it and issued him a U.S. Passport instead even when we stated we didn't want his American citizenship.

Then you renounce your american citizenship afterwards and retain your Canadian.

[Mr.HappySilp]

Originally Posted by Manic!

What if you move to another country for work and have kid with a woman from that country?

Then your kids will with citizenship from that country in which they are born in...... you can either end apply citizenship for that country and give up your Canadian citizenship or have your kids and wife apply for Canadian citizenship via sponsorship.

[$_$]

Originally Posted by Mr.HappySilp

Then your kids will with citizenship from that country in which they are born in...... you can either end apply citizenship for that country and give up your Canadian citizenship or have your kids and wife apply for Canadian citizenship via sponsorship.

Yeah, but the crux of the problem is, despite the fact that your kid could have been born in Canada, you being "Canadian Canadian", just the sole fact that their mother holding dual citizenship or citizenship from another country can net your child to fall under the second class citizen category because they gain the ability to apply for a second passport. How is that fair?

Quite literally, they are systematically segregating people based on your heritage. And you don't see a problem with that?

It might seem fine and dandy to you now, when your political and foreign policy views align with the current government, but what happens when it doesn't? What happens when your wife's heritage nation is not on friendly terms with Canada? You don't see the slippery slope that this could have when you remove what use to be due process through a more rigorous justice system with a judge?

To all those people saying "just don't be a terrorist", ask any brown person traveling through the US what it feels like "not being a terrorist" and going through the TSA. Now apply that feeling to the possibility losing your CITIZENSHIP because you skin color or the country you come from is affiliated to a negative group based solely on your heritage.

Why should the government be given more power with less oversight? Who does that benefit?

Screaming "for the terrorists!" is the new "for the children!" and look how that turned out. Censorship, mass surveillance, a curtail of personal liberty and infringements on privacy. Just because it doesn't affect you now doesn't mean it won't affect you or someone you know or love in the future. I love Canada and I'm proud to be Canadian. And yeah, my family settled here after the white Europeans did. That shouldn't make me a second class citizen or any less Canadian.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by RFlush

Then you renounce your american citizenship afterwards and retain your Canadian.

It is not possible until the kid reaches age of 18 or until he can fully demonstrate that he is fully aware of the consequence of renouncing his citizenship (presumably unfit until 16) at least as far as American embassy is concerned. Their view is that parents have no right to decide on behalf of child.

Similar stance is taken by other gov't. I.E.: there is no provision for minor to renounce citizenship in Canada.

So, it's easier said than done. It's not as easy as filling out a form and handing back the passport even for adults (the process was made deliberately complicated).

Furthermore, it's not about whether one qualifies for another citizenship or not. Just because I have/can have another citizenship doesn't make me any less Canadian than you, or millions of other Canadians. Then why should any of us be treated differently?

[Mikoyan]

Originally Posted by underscore

Doesn't this just support the point that this will not affect many people? Especially considering this guy has been held on BS charges and the Canadian gov't has been trying to help him, not trying to use this to revoke his citizenship?

Which as far as I can work out, is only considered a terrorist group by Egypt, not Canada.

A media network doesn't fall under A or C...

Which imo is completely valid. If somebody attempts or assists in acts of terrorism they should be held accountable. I fail to see how people attempting/planning/helping/encouraging shouldn't be treated the same as anyone who does kill or injure significant numbers of people. However, as far as I can tell, the Muslim Brotherhood hasn't committed or attempted any terrorist acts since the late 70's, so again this wouldn't apply.

Your points are correct if he was being charged in a Canadian court, but considering that he was arrested and tried under Egypt's courts, not Canadian, makes it pretty relevant that Egypt considers the MB a terrorist group. The Egyptians felt he was supporting a banned ideological group. The Egyptians felt that his media organization was a threat to national security and fermenting unrest against the government. And they charged him under their laws as such.

The support he got from Canadian officials, according to him, and media reports at the time, seemed lower key, and it seemed like the government grudgingly took on the case because of the international outcry about it. Other countries involved seemed to be a lot more vocal about getting their citizens out.

Of course this only affects a small number of people. Any step to erode our rights starts small and only needs to be seen as affecting a small insignificant group, to be seen as non threatening and acceptance by the general public.

This bill concentrates too much power over our citizenship rights to the elected government than I'm comfortable with.

[twitchyzero]

Is there a party that will repeal both C51 and C24 in the upcoming election? These are two bullshit laws that makes me not want to make any effort to celebrate Canada's Day next week and it makes me sad.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Mikoyan

Your points are correct if he was being charged in a Canadian court, but considering that he was arrested and tried under Egypt's courts, not Canadian, makes it pretty relevant that Egypt considers the MB a terrorist group. The Egyptians felt he was supporting a banned ideological group. The Egyptians felt that his media organization was a threat to national security and fermenting unrest against the government. And they charged him under their laws as such.

But for Canada to revoke his Canadian citizenship the charges and prison time have to translate over to Canadian law. The part that I think determines which of us is correct is how exactly the "conversion" is made from whatever foreign legal system someone is charged under to the Canadian Criminal Code (which might need someone more legalese-inclined to sort out). If they simply cross-reference the final charges with no regard for what they are based on then I agree, we could be in trouble for nonsense foreign charges. If they look at why someone was charged and the differences between what Canada deems terrorism and what a foreign country deems terrorism then I don't see much harm in calling someone deemed a terrorist under our laws a terrorist.

To simplify: If someone is arrested and charged as a terrorist in a foreign country, and what they did would have been a terrorist act under Canadian law had it happened on Canadian soil and they lose their citizenship, I don't see a problem.

If someone is arrested and charged as a terrorist in a foreign country, and what they did would not have been a terrorist act under Canadian law had it happened on Canadian soil and they don't lose their citizenship, I don't see a problem.

But if someone is arrested and charged as a terrorist in a foreign country, and what they did would not have been a terrorist act under Canadian law had it happened on Canadian soil and they do lose their citizenship, I see a problem.

[Hehe]

Liberal gov't introduced bill C-6 to amend C-21.

As a 'matter of principle,' convicted terrorists are fellow citizens - Politics - CBC News

"A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian"

[asian_XL]

Chinese mainlanders are considered as second class Canadian?