Are you a second class Canadian?

[Tone Loc]

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

Just as a general comment, it seems reasonable to me that the same government which grants citizenship should have the right to revoke it.

This. I don't see the problem with this type of policy, especially when such extreme policies will likely only affect a very tiny percentage of Canadians. It's not like the federal government will suddenly start booting out people left and right. My guess is that only in cases of extreme risk, such as terrorism, heinous crimes, extradition, etc., this policy will be used.

A much much less "significant" example of such discretionary law can be found in speeding... technically, if you are doing 51 in a 50 zone it is illegal and ticketable. But would any cop actually ticket you for that? Doubtful.

[sdubfid]

Originally Posted by Mikoyan

It's not just immigrants that they can revoke the citizenship from. They can take a Canada born citizen's citizenship as long as they have the possibility of citizenship from another country.

For example, you're a Canadian born in Canada. You get arrested and convicted in some other country on charges serious enough to warrant your citizenship taken away. Turns out Mom was a US Citizen at the time of your birth, and that makes you eligible for US citizenship. Whether or not you have US citizenship or not, the government can take your Canadian citizenship via bureaucratic process, not a judicial process.

Also, the government doesn't care if the charges are legit or not. If you're put up on trumped up charges by a third world dictatorship, too bad!

that happens to me all the time

[godwin]

Actually if people had really been worried about this, they would HAD tweeted / contacting MPs / suggesting changes long before the bill passed, house, senate and had royal assent.

My point is OP only found out now and what to complain a law that was passed ages ago? Should had complained when there were debates. These things are televised on CPAC.. it is not exactly backroom deals.. though I suspect backroom deals would had been way more interesting than CPAC.

Originally Posted by Tapioca

There are lots of celebrities or people with money that have dual citizenship. If people are concerned about this, they're better off tweeting them or getting them on-board with changes. Figure out how to get the media to pay attention - modern governments are in the business of trying to minimize negative press.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by FunkyColdMedina

This. I don't see the problem with this type of policy, especially when such extreme policies will likely only affect a very tiny percentage of Canadians. It's not like the federal government will suddenly start booting out people left and right. My guess is that only in cases of extreme risk, such as terrorism, heinous crimes, extradition, etc., this policy will be used.

A much much less "significant" example of such discretionary law can be found in speeding... technically, if you are doing 51 in a 50 zone it is illegal and ticketable. But would any cop actually ticket you for that? Doubtful.

The problem is not when or who they decide to enforce such a law, but that the law, the way it was written, was plagued with discrimination to a certain group of Canadians with overly broad languages.

As it stands now, a Canadian who only has one citizenship and not eligible to any other can do whatever the fuck he/she wants. Want to join the ISIS? Go ahead, we have your back. While the same is not the case for those eligible for newer immigrants.

So, what is the reasoning of this? That the newer citizens are more likely to become terrorist? What's the scientific base on such claim? And even then, why not every Canadian? What makes the newer Canadians any less Canadian than older Canadians?

We can't know for sure when we give citizenship to a new Canadian (whether born/jus soli, naturalized, or parentage/jus sanguinis) that they are going to turn out right. Some of them might fuck'd up and become a terrorist or commit some serious crime. However, as a well-developed society, we believe that we will create far more good citizens than the bad ones and it's a risk we all take as we know we'd come out ahead in the long run.

What this bill does is not much different than when Canada decided to *repatriate* thousands of Japanese-Canadian during the war (with more than half of them born and raised in Canada), arguably the worst human right violation in Canadian history. And an act that Canadian gov't reverse course later on acknowledging the mistake made.

All in all, citizenship, or at least the rights granted to Canadians by the Charters are rights, not a privilege. Once you are a Canadian, you deserve the constitutional protection of having those rights. By making any less of it, they are trying to take the constitutional right away from its citizens.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Coulda shoulda woulda - thanks captian obvious. Its difficult to get people to use abstract thought, to think of the future and often times that means they don't give a shit until its too late. People are discussing this in the here and now. Trying to take the OP down a peg for not saying anything sooner does nothing to progress the discussion.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by godwin

Actually if people had really been worried about this, they would HAD tweeted / contacting MPs / suggesting changes long before the bill passed, house, senate and had royal assent.
.

And I believe that was the problem. The bill's coverage is in the verge of constitutional violation. Yet, there was no public hearing or research. The minister drafted a version that it sees fit (getting powers it wants with minimal resistance) and the parliament went along with it.

[ImportPsycho]

naturalized citizen, but not dual citizen.
Where do i go if they take away my citizenship?

[PiuYi]

For those saying "oh this law won't affect 99.999% of us, it's just for the terrorists..." that's like the government pointing a gun to your head and promising not to shoot unless they think you're a terrorist, does that make you feel safe and protected?

[godwin]

Basically they keep you in detention while they try to find a country to take you. Much like what they do with refugee claimants remember the boat people from Sri Lanka a few years ago?

If you are naturalized, you still have a country before. eg certain countries like Malaysia.. unless you renounce your citizenship, they still consider you a citizen of the country. I don't think China you can renounce at all. I can see the government using this clause to kick out financial / crooked politicians running away with money from say China to Canada. This will give them pause..

It happened to a lot of innocent people got stuck in Guantanamo. US took them, interrogated them found them to have nothing to do with terrorism, can't return them back to country of origin. They have to find a 3rd party country to take you in usually one of the Emirates.

Originally Posted by ImportPsycho

naturalized citizen, but not dual citizen.
Where do i go if they take away my citizenship?

[jasonturbo]

I'm sorry I walked into this thread... Where is CIC when you need him?

[jackmeister]

Agree with the notion that if you're given citizenship, they should be able to take it away as well.

Having said that, how the hell would this survive a Charter challenge? I'm no lawyer and this is already a big mindfuck

[Tegra_Devil]

I don't mind.

[4444]

Originally Posted by Hehe

The problem is not when or who they decide to enforce such a law, but that the law, the way it was written, was plagued with discrimination to a certain group of Canadians with overly broad languages.

As it stands now, a Canadian who only has one citizenship and not eligible to any other can do whatever the fuck he/she wants. Want to join the ISIS? Go ahead, we have your back. While the same is not the case for those eligible for newer immigrants.

So, what is the reasoning of this? That the newer citizens are more likely to become terrorist? What's the scientific base on such claim? And even then, why not every Canadian? What makes the newer Canadians any less Canadian than older Canadians?

We can't know for sure when we give citizenship to a new Canadian (whether born/jus soli, naturalized, or parentage/jus sanguinis) that they are going to turn out right. Some of them might fuck'd up and become a terrorist or commit some serious crime. However, as a well-developed society, we believe that we will create far more good citizens than the bad ones and it's a risk we all take as we know we'd come out ahead in the long run.

What this bill does is not much different than when Canada decided to *repatriate* thousands of Japanese-Canadian during the war (with more than half of them born and raised in Canada), arguably the worst human right violation in Canadian history. And an act that Canadian gov't reverse course later on acknowledging the mistake made.

All in all, citizenship, or at least the rights granted to Canadians by the Charters are rights, not a privilege. Once you are a Canadian, you deserve the constitutional protection of having those rights. By making any less of it, they are trying to take the constitutional right away from its citizens.

the reason they can't do anything to a single citizenship Canadian, is that it is against international law to revoke one's citizenship when they have none other (or no offers of citizenship).

the alternative to what the government is doing is to make getting citizenship much, much harder - 3 years as a PR for citizenship? too easy - make it 10 years?

i dunno, i have dual cdn and another, my cdn was too easy to get in my eyes, not that i'd want it taken away.

[westopher]

I don't think its unreasonable to be able to strip someones rights based on terrorism charges. On the other hand once someone is a citizen of Canada, I believe they are an exact equal to any Canadian citizen wether born here or not. I get both sides of it for sure. This seems like kind of a no win sort of situation. I wish we could take away citizenship of "born here" citizens as well to be honest.
You want to be a terrorist? Well, better hope Syria keeps you there, because you can't leave that place since you are no longer able to travel anywhere without a passport or citizenship. Then there is the moral issue of fucking over Syria (just an example as I know terrorism can be based in many/all countries), which we know is in shambles already, and filling a country full of more garbage ruins the lives of its actual good citizens. We are pretty much fucked any way we do things, as there is always a risk of making the wrong accusations or punishments.

[melloman]

Bill C-24 isn't a big issue to me, considering it's targeting a very specific group of individuals. It is written straight forward enough that most people wouldn't bat an eye, and a year ago it hit the news and nobody really said shit.

If you want to go ape shit on a bill Hehe then go read Bill C-51. This bill literally is being passed through the courts so that the governments "agenda" can keep progressing. The government is finding that people are not as accepting as they once used to be of major capital projects for LNG, Oil & Gas and Hydro-Electric infrastructure.

A big one was covered by VICE News recently, tl;dr behind it is the BC Government gave land to some Native Indians yet didn't have enough forward thinking to map out their oil & gas pipelines.. Turns out that 3 major piplines are now mapped out to cross through all that land.. and the Native Indians have said "No Way in Hell" and have blockaded every entrance onto the land. Corporations & government have been using helicopters to survey and the Natives again use ATV's to go shoo them away at every instance.

[Mike Oxbig]

Its been known for decades now that the Canadian gov wants to genocide the first nation people

[BoredAtWork]

No point of arguing, already bitched and submitted my part of the petition last year.

Fact is governments screw up often. Giving this type of power to strip citizenship without fair trial is problematic.

precedent case? try to google "Japanese Internment Camps" during WWII.
no buts, ifs, trials what not, you are turned into a refugee because they say so.

Guess what happen to those Japanese Canadians? Your money, land, jobs, career, family. All gone in a flash, just because.
All of them innocent.

http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/proj...ternment1.html


Read our own Canadian history that was never taught in school

[ancient_510]

Originally Posted by jackmeister

Agree with the notion that if you're given citizenship, they should be able to take it away as well.

I'm Canadian, born in Canada, lived here all my life.
recently acquired a foreign citizenship through Jus sanguinis.
where does that leave me?

[capt_slo]

Originally Posted by BoredAtWork

Read our own Canadian history that was never taught in school

It was covered pretty well in my school....and I grew up in Surrey

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by ancient_510

I'm Canadian, born in Canada, lived here all my life.
recently acquired a foreign citizenship through Jus sanguinis.
where does that leave me?

Are you white?

[JaPoola]

Most of the posters on here have not immigrated from a country that used to have a communist dictatorship in power. I have, and with the laws these fuckers are coming up with in the recent years, it's starting to feel like deja vu.

Eastern europe communist countries all had secret police spying on their own citizens. You'd be scared to say anything against the establishment because either the secret police would hear it, or a collaborator would rat you out. We already have the surveillance in place. Now put in some laws to deal with the "troublemakers". Next will be incentives to rat on people.

Speaking of snitching on your fellow citizen:

http://www.cknw.com/2015/06/10/79857/

[ancient_510]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Are you white?

Nope, I'm a terrorist.

[Aria]

deleted

[godwin]

US and Canada have pretty extensive data sharing rules.. I am sure they know

Originally Posted by Aria

Hmm.. if I'm dual US and Canadian (without them knowing), I wonder what happens then.

[twitchyzero]

is there anything the public can do about this?
the change.org petition says to change the bill but it's now an official law
i read that now that it's an actual law it can finally be challeneged in court?
clearly i don't remember the civics stuff I learned in 8th grade.