It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But the law has a flip side that is much darker. It gives the government the discretion to strip the citizenship of any dual citizen convicted of terrorism, treason or spying abroad. The consequences are disturbing and unfair for Canada’s 863,000 dual nationals. They run the risk of being treated as somehow less Canadian. There is an ugly, xenophobic side to this law, which may play well with some voters, but has no place in a modern, multicultural Canada. Of course Canadians found guilty of crimes in credible courts of law should be punished according to the law, and they are. But Bill C-24 gives the government the power to revoke citizenship as some kind of additional penalty. It is redundant in cases where a citizen is in fact guilty of a crime. It is downright dangerous for those who are not. Under the new law, for example, Al Jazeera journalist Mohamed Fahmy could be stripped of his Canadian citizenship because he was convicted of terrorism by an Egyptian court. Ottawa has said it would not apply the law in Mr. Fahmy’s case, but the mere fact that it has had to answer the question should give us all pause.
Ending birthright citizenship The final change to Canada's citizenship regime will be the most controversial, and has yet to be introduced. Ministers Kenney and Alexander have both proclaimed their dissatisfaction with the law that anyone born in Canada is a Canadian citizen (unless they are the children of diplomats). Both have stated an intention to modify this principle, although specifics have not been provided. In my opinion, if the current government remains in office, the abolition of birthright citizenship in Canada is a question of "when" not "if."
Limitation on first generation abroad In 2009, Jason Kenney, then Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, introduced the "first generation limitation" on Canadian citizenship. After April 2009, Canadian citizenship could only be conferred to those who were born abroad if they had a Canadian parent who was either born in Canada, or who was a naturalized citizen. But it would no longer be possible for those first generation Canadian citizens to pass on their citizenship to their children and then theoretically endless generations born outside Canada.
While Deepan was serving three years in prison for drug and firearms charges, a racial-profiling prison guard brought him to the attention of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). The CBSA then determined he should be deported to India, a country he has never been to. The Harper government is hoping to make banishment a more regular activity now that their Bill C-24"Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act" has become law. The bill raises the bar for acquiring citizenship and allows it to be revoked by a parliamentary minister, with no possible appeal in court.
Today, applicants wait 4-6 years to become citizens due to government delay and inefficiency. With the new law, you will have to wait 8 to 10 years in total to become a citizen from the date you become a permanent resident. 4. More difficult residency requirements: The new law will require people to live in Canada as permanent residents for at least four years before they can apply for citizenship. The current rule is three years. Under the new law, any time spent in Canada before becoming a permanent resident (as a student, a worker or a refugee) will no longer count toward the four years residency requirement. Even if you are born in Canada, you are at risk of losing citizenship if you have dual citizenship or the possibility of dual citizenship. You may not even know that you possess another citizenship. If you have a spouse, parent, or grandparent who is a citizen of another country, you may have a right to citizenship without ever having applied for it. The proposed law would put you at risk of losing your Canadian citizenship if the Minister asserts that you possess or could obtain another citizenship. The burden would be on you to prove otherwise to the Minister’s satisfaction The new law will make it easier for the government to take away your citizenship in the following ways: 1.For all naturalized citizens, a federal government official can revoke your citizenship if he believes you never intended to live in Canada.
“This act reminds us where we come from and why citizenship has value,” said the minister. “When we take on the obligations of citizens we’re following in the footsteps of millions of people who came here and made outstanding contributions over centuries. And we are celebrating that diversity, solidifying the order and rule of law we have here; we’re committing ourselves to participate as citizens in the life of a very vibrant democracy.”
When Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Chris Alexander announced the reforms earlier this year at a news conference at Toronto’s Fort York, he said the new act was designed to “protect and strengthen the great value of Canadian citizenship, and remind individuals that citizenship is not a right, it’s a privilege.”
originally posted by: charles1952
Please tell me the important things that I'm missing. Besides the talk of the lawyers opposed to it, since they work for a refugee group, what I see is that if you have a Canadian citizenship and a citizenship in another country, a conviction for terrorism, treason, or spying will cause you to lose your Canadian citizenship while you keep the other.
Given that any law can be misused, what exactly is the problem again? Isn't it Canada's prerogative to determine who it's citizens are?
originally posted by: JiggyPotamus
I do not see how the arguments being used against this bill are justified. I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone who was not a natural-born citizen to lose their citizenship if CONVICTED of terrorism or espionage. Crimes against the government should cause them to lose their citizenship. The only bad thing about laws like this in any country is when they are misused. But if used properly, and only terrorists or spies are truly targeted, then I see it as perfectly acceptable.