"Proposed law would strip Canadian citizenship for acts of war"

[tomahawk6]

Taking a terrorists's citizenship is much more humane than killing them via predator strike.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Bump with the latest - bill passes Second reading (here's who voted which way), and moves to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for further study

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest in committee:

A private member's bill that would strip citizenship from dual-nationals accused of treason hit roadblocks Tuesday, as expected.

Before the House committee on immigration, Tory MP Devinder Shory's Bill-425 encountered many of the challenges - constitutional and otherwise - legal experts had anticipated.

The bill proposes to remove citizenship from dual citizens who have "engaged in acts of war against the Canadian Forces" and also to expedite the citizenship process for permanent residents who've enlisted in the military.

Shory told the committee the catalyst for the bill was his belief Canadian citizenship is a privilege, not an inalienable right. Shory's conviction, however, may be at odds with the Constitution.

Opposition MPs questioned the "two-tier" citizenship system the bill would create and wondered how that would jive with Canada's being a signatory to the Geneva Convention, which dictates no person should be rendered stateless.

Also questioned was the wording of the bill, which at least one expert witness - Col. Michael Gibson of National Defence - said was "problematic."

Gibson said the term "acts of war" has not been part of the Canadian military or legal vernacular for about half a century. It's been replaced with "armed conflict" -- the term Gibson suggested using in the bill for the purposes of clarity and specificity ....

QMI/Sun Media, 20 Mar 13

 

[Pusser]

This makes sense, Trudeau wants terrorists to keep their citizenship,

That's a pretty gross over-simplification.  I gather you would rather exile someone back to a place where they would be allowed to walk free and continue to plot ways to attrack the West?  The change to the Citizenship Act that allowed naturalized citizens to be stripped of their citizenship was ill-advised, ineffective and just plain stupid.  I have worn this country's uniform for over 30 years and was a long time Conservative supporter and forgave them many sins until they made me a second-class citizen.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That's a pretty gross over-simplification.  I gather you would rather exile someone back to a place where they would be allowed to walk free and continue to plot ways to attrack the West?

Yes. It's better than letting them walk free in Canada continuing to plot ways to attack the west while living next door and collecting a government paycheck. 

 

[PuckChaser]

You're not a second class citizen unless you were plotting to attack this country. I'm a first generation Canadian, and my immigrant father was more than happy to have convicted terrorists striped and booted because he valued so much what Canada has given him. The second class citizen thing is BS.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Yes. It's better than letting them walk free in Canada continuing to plot ways to attack the west while living next door and collecting a government paycheck.

Hear, hear.

You're not a second class citizen unless you were plotting to attack this country. I'm a first generation Canadian, and my immigrant father was more than happy to have convicted terrorists striped and booted because he valued so much what Canada has given him. The second class citizen thing is BS.

I am as well, and I am sure if he was still around my father would be of the same viewpoint. 

As for the second class citizen comment, Pusser, all of the mainstream parties have always made me believe they view us as such by virtue of their actions and deeds.  The Liberals and NDP in particular.

 

[Pusser]

You're not a second class citizen unless you were plotting to attack this country. I'm a first generation Canadian, and my immigrant father was more than happy to have convicted terrorists striped and booted because he valued so much what Canada has given him. The second class citizen thing is BS.

It is not BS.  If you have a legal tool that you can use against one citizen, but not another, then you have two classes of citizenship and that is simply wrong.  What is BS is this idea that, "as long as you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to fear."  Using that argument, you should have no issue with the police searching your house on a regular basis.  After all, if you're not a criminal, what are you hiding?  Unfortunately, terrorism is only the flavour of the moment of heinous crimes.  What about child-molesters, mass murderers, jaywalkers - the list goes on.  What's to stop a government from adding to the list of crimes to warrant stripping someone's citizenship?  How does this prevent homegrown terrorists, whom I would argue are more dangerous because they're harder to identify and monitor? 

I'm not saying we should allow terrorists to walk our streets freely, but we need to use measures that are not only effective, but which are also fair and treat all citizens equally.  Rather than stripping citizens of citizenship, perhaps we should be more discerning on who becomes citizens?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Your examples don't pan out Pusser. Mass-muderers, child-molesters and jaywalkers ( ???) don't seek to enter the country and obtain the benefits of citizenship for the purpose of fighting against the state itself.

You state that we should instead be more discerning on who we let become citizens. But the very essence of "moles" is to have a verifiable cover that is a perfect veneer of probity. These people specifically sent to "acquire" citizenship and infiltrate society to fight it from within will meet every single requirement for citizenship and will be exemplary citizens until "activated" thereafter.

If we can't strip them of the citizenship to deport them after they serve their time for any crime against the state, what have we got left as option? Release after their time in and spend millions in constant surveillance for the rest of their life?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

If we can't strip them of the citizenship to deport them after they serve their time for any crime against the state, what have we got left as option? Release after their time in and spend millions in constant surveillance for the rest of their life?

Execution or lifelong imprisonment without parole such as with Paul Barnardo are options (execution not really being an option in reality).

There needs to be a difference between laws against the state and laws against persons, including in the punishments levied. While rape, murder, theft, etc are bad they are bad at an individual level. Terrorism seeks to destroy/alter a society to achieve a political goal which is a different beast. In this case, I believe that stripping a citizenship of someone for attacking society as a whole is a reasonable punishment and differs from murder, as an example, which is generally done at a personal/individual level. The grey area would be differentiating between something such as a school shooting vs terrorism.... but that's why we pay the supreme court and other levels of courts. 

 

[George Wallace]

Getting back to the topic, most of the more recent crop of deserters were people who signed up for the pay and benefits offered by the US armed forces, but declined to carry out their part of the contract when they were activated or their units called up. Coming to Canada allows them to continue their parasitical lifestyle (get welfare or other benefits while in Canada), while not offering anything back. Taxpayers in both nations have a large enough burden without having to pay for even more freeloaders.

Regardless of our views of American foreign policy, military actions etc., this is essentially an issue between the American servicemember who knowingly signed a contract and the United States Government as the owner of the contract. (I make an exception for draftees, who did not voluntarily sign the contract). People who behave in this manner will offer nothing to our community; best to send them back ASAP.

Not to mention that now they have an established "Track Record" which employers may not look at as being favourable.

 

[Pusser]

Your examples don't pan out Pusser. Mass-muderers, child-molesters and jaywalkers ( ???) don't seek to enter the country and obtain the benefits of citizenship for the purpose of fighting against the state itself.

You state that we should instead be more discerning on who we let become citizens. But the very essence of "moles" is to have a verifiable cover that is a perfect veneer of probity. These people specifically sent to "acquire" citizenship and infiltrate society to fight it from within will meet every single requirement for citizenship and will be exemplary citizens until "activated" thereafter.

If we can't strip them of the citizenship to deport them after they serve their time for any crime against the state, what have we got left as option? Release after their time in and spend millions in constant surveillance for the rest of their life?

You're talking about people who have lied to obtain citizenship and on that issue, I think we are in agreement.  Lying in order to obtain citizenship should effectively nullify it as it should never have been granted in the first place.  This is where we need to be more discerning.  The Citizenship Act already had provisions to nullify citizenship for lying on the application.  No further changes were necessary. 

 

[PuckChaser]

Lets just clear something up here.

I swear (or affirm)
That I will be faithful
And bear true allegiance
To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second
Queen of Canada
Her Heirs and Successors
And that I will faithfully observe
The laws of Canada
And fulfil my duties
As a Canadian citizen.

By plotting/conducting an attack against Canada, you have not born true allegiance to HM QE2, or faithfully observed the laws of Canada. Your citizenship should be forfeit, as you have broken that oath, unless in removing your citizenship it renders you stateless.

 

[kratz]

BINGO ! That's how I understand it as well. Thank you PuckChaser.

 

[Pusser]

Lets just clear something up here.

By plotting/conducting an attack against Canada, you have not born true allegiance to HM QE2, or faithfully observed the laws of Canada. Your citizenship should be forfeit, as you have broken that oath, unless in removing your citizenship it renders you stateless.

In other words, some citizens are treated differently than others = two classes of citizenship - that which can be revoked and that which cannot.

A lot of people seem to be OK with this, presumably because it involves terrorism.  However, a law like this opens the door to future amendment to include other crimes or actions.  I don't think it is wise to open that door.

 

[PuckChaser]

You can't revoke citizenship from people who would be rendered stateless, we signed that treaty. Technically, I created 3 tiers of citizenship if you want to keep using a Liberal party line to try to defend your position. The "slippery slope" rebuttal is a fallacy, the courts would never uphold someone being booted for shoplifting or jaywalking. There is a very narrow set of crimes that this would apply to, and would stand legal test.

 

[TCM621]

It doesn't create 2 classes of citizens. It removes citizenship that should never have been granted. Anyone who becomes a Canadian citizen swears an oath that reads

"I swear (or affirm)
That I will be faithful
And bear true allegiance
To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second
Queen of Canada
Her Heirs and Successors
And that I will faithfully observe
The laws of Canada
And fulfil my duties
As a Canadian citizen."

If it can be shown that a person became a citizen while plotting against the state,  they lied on their oath and their citizenship is invalid.  I think the bar should be pretty high but I think it should be on the table. It isn't revoking citizenship so much as it is annulling it due to false pretenses.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm a "second class citizen".  I was born in the UK.  I supported the citizenship law.  My children's circumstances are different than mine.  They were born over here. 

 

[Kirkhill]

It doesn't create 2 classes of citizens. It removes citizenship that should never have been granted. Anyone who becomes a Canadian citizen swears an oath that reads

"I swear (or affirm)
That I will be faithful
And bear true allegiance
To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second
Queen of Canada
Her Heirs and Successors
And that I will faithfully observe
The laws of Canada
And fulfil my duties
As a Canadian citizen."

If it can be shown that a person became a citizen while plotting against the state,  they lied on their oath and their citizenship is invalid.  I think the bar should be pretty high but I think it should be on the table. It isn't revoking citizenship so much as it is annulling it due to false pretenses.

I have a bigger problem with the court decision that allows immigrants to lie when they swear that oath and then immediately forswear it after they have been accepted as a Canadian citizen.  That demonstrates to me that they are untrustworty, unworthy and should be immediately deported.

 

[RedcapCrusader]

I have a bigger problem with the court decision that allows immigrants to lie when they swear that oath and then immediately forswear it after they have been accepted as a Canadian citizen.  That demonstrates to me that they are untrustworty, unworthy and should be immediately deported.

I am not familiar with this decision, care to share a link?