Signals.Cpl

It could be done, make some attractions and provide a secure, safe vacation and Canadians will go. Right now Mexico is a virtual warzone and not safe for tourists as seen in the gang rape of 6 Spanish women, Cuba is one step away from becoming unaffordable if Americans start vacationing there so if Canada has its own vacation spot we can keep our vacationers in Canada at the same time though we could also compete for more tourist dollars.

So? We can take care of ourselves and take measures to avoid such a problem by toughening up the refugee laws instead of worrying about the potential problem with a solution we should look at the potential of having a Canadian vacation spot that can potentially see us keeping our tax dollars in Canada as well as attracting Americans and Europeans to vacation there. Compile a list of benefits for both Canadians and the locals and the negative from such a union for both and determine if there is a reason to do this. We can take an opportunity and potentially improve the lives of more than 30,000 people while at the same time keeping our vacation dollars at home or we could avoid doing something because its hard and keep having Canadians vacationing in Cuba, DR, Mexico and dozen other locations and export their vacation dollars there,

But there is also the offset when we consider the potential for tourism, think about how it would affect Canada if the millions of Canadians who go to Cuba, DR or Mexico had a Canadian option where they spend their vacation in Canada and the money comes back to Canada. Spending money to develop a potential vacation hot spot would overtime offset any money we have to spend to get it up to level... Also just to point out that a few years ago we knew that a boatload of refugees was coming to Canada from Thailand and while we had plenty of warning they still landed on Canadian soil, so distance does not seem to help us much.

But that was to separate the federal election and provincial elections so as not to interfere with each other.

I don't think that this is applicable as much because once someone moves to Canada and makes Canada their home they have made their choice. Look at World War Two and the treatment of Japanese citizens in both the US and Canada and then look at the 442nd Regiment in the US Army During WW2. And what is the solution? Take away his citizenship? And most immigrants have chosen their allegiance while the once who came to Canada exclusively for the citizenship and then left have also chosen their allegiance to their home country. And plenty of people born in Canada take advantage of everything Canada has to offer without ever giving anything back or caring about being Canadian. How so? You want to make my citizenship be lesser then that of someone born here that is the definition of second class citizen. How does it ensure that? A passport is a piece of paper that means nothing, a citizenship card means nothing so taking them away does not mean you are more Canadian because now I only have a Canadian passport, it means that now you feel just the same but you only use the Canadian passport. Fix the underlying issues here instead of trying to put in place solutions that solve nothing really other then giving you a false sense of accomplishment and a false sense of security.

How did you hear PM Harper thinking?

Depends how they handle the situation in Mali. In Afghanistan NATO made numerous mistakes just like the mistakes that the US made in Iraq so if France and any AU/UN troops who deploy there learn from the mistakes made in Afghanistan and Iraq we can see serious change otherwise as you said it will repeat itself and there would just be another barely stable nation to worry about. Look at Egypt though, I see it as a sign that they will not take that crap anymore since as soon as the government tried to get more power the people had a thing or two to say about it. Maybe stability is a long way off for them but I think they are making small steps in the right direction.

If we make immigrants a second class citizens the good productive immigrants will find some more welcoming nations, why come to Canada and be "Canadian" wen you can go to somewhere else where you are equal. How so? We will take care of you no matter how much you screw up v. we will kick you out when we feel you have screwed up sufficiently which means one is not equal to the other. Treat your kids like that and see the harmony at home just blossom. Why don't you buy it? History is filled with examples of well meaning yet idiotic political decision against one group that started an avalanche of even more idiotic decisions against the group. What happens when a few brutal rape cases are presented in the media and the perpetrators are immigrants? You already have a law that says we can take your citizenship for being a terrorist so its not such a leap to make rape and murder grounds for terminating citizenship and then on to a downwards slope of lesser and lesser crimes. What this leads to is us v. them, look at World War Two and the treatment of Japanese "Canadians", there were Canadians and "Canadians", guess who went to the camps... Really? I will Refer you to Ukrainians in World War One where they committed no crime other then being immigrants to Canada yet they were punished for where they came from rather than what they have or have not done. You don't think that someone will come and promote more changes in order to further their agenda? It does not need to be something big , it could be small changes over the course of a few decades that many people might not notice. We have a law to remove citizenship for acts of terrorism, some guy rapes and terrorizes a women for a few days and suddenly someone defines that as terrorism, if the "law" is too strict it will accomplish nothing as few cases will meet all the requirements, if it is too broad people will abuse it to fit their agenda. Also who will determine what a terrorist act is, or what a terrorist is? If Canadians were involved with an NGO in a war zone and the government found them guilty of terrorism do we strip them of their citizenship because some government may or may not use due diligence when prosecuting the person. Do we strip people of their citizenship based on the findings of another government or do we conduct an investigation of our own and a trial in Canada? Im not worried about the cop either, I am worried about some xenophobe in parliament who gets enough support to make amendments to this law, and as I previously said they need not be major changes but rather minor changes that overtime make the law more and more vague. And instead of taking steps to deal with the problem and strengthen Canadian citizenship we take steps to weaken Canadian citizenship and pretend the problem is solved. Revoke passports for suspected terrorists because a Canadian citizenship is pretty useless for a terrorist if it cannot get you in the country of your choice. What is being proposed is the least likely solution as a way for Canadians to feel safe without actually being any safer. This law will do nothing but marginalize immigrant and kick out terrorist AFTER the fact. Want to deal with the problem? Deal with it is a systematic approach that solves the problem rather then just mudding up the water with a "solution" that creates more problems while making no solutions.

And your suggestion puts those same 99.99% of Canadians as second class citizens. This would tell people that you aren't really Canadian, and the suggestion to pay taxes is meant to remove more then just 0.01% of the bad apples but more like the tens of thousands who live outside the country and have the passport only as a way out in an emergency. Being a second class citizen is not "some technical" argument, you want to devalue my citizenship fine but people begin to wonder why I should do everything right if I am not given the same rights as a Canadian born person. I moved here with my parents who have worked for everything since we moved here and have never depended on welfare or handouts, I have worked and paid taxes all of my working life and suddenly someone says that the citizenship of an immigrant is worth less then that of someone who is born here lived on welfare and government handouts, in and out of jail all their life... What you are saying is that one was born here and they are our problem while another being a naturalized citizen is not our problem but their problem... I fix the problem rather then make Canada an unattractive place for immigration. Would you treat your children this way? Telling one that if they mess up you will take care of them while the other if they mess up you will toss their behind in the street? Cant see how that might make one feel worth less then the other? What is to stop the government in 10 years from deciding that immigrants are the problem and start stripping citizenship for lesser and lesser crimes? You kill someone you lose your citizenship, you punch someone you lose your citizenship... go 80km in a 50km zone you lose your citizenship... Oh you got sick? Sorry your citizenship has been revoked. Bankrupt? Out you go we don't need your kind here...

More people that have guns means that more guns are available for those who shouldn't have them, I am not talking about doubling the number of rifles in the hands of collectors but rather increasing the number of weapons in the hands of even more people many of whom should not be trusted with spoons let alone firearms.

No, I am suggesting that the NRA is tripping up every suggestion that might help the situation because they are terrified of losing any of the guns that define them.

Both sides(the most vocal) are extreme and thus their suggestions are the loudest, one side wants to ban all guns while the other claims the government will kill your kids if you don't have a rifle to stop them.

And that is unlikely when you get in to the millions and tens of millions of people applying for the permit while having hundreds of thousands "maintain/improve the standard"... I can only imagine the idiots who will get their hands on guns just by watching what kind of idiots they allow on the roads.

And yet I have not heard one good suggestion come from the gun owners... neither have a heard a good suggestion coming from the ban all guns crowd. The gun debate in the US will be going on for a long time because both sides are led by extremist idiots who don't want to solve the underlying problem but instead they want to either deflect the blame or get a feel good "solution" that solves nothing.

Might be hard to compare as on one hand you have the police officers who run towards the gun battle while the CCW get involved if they happen to be in the immediate area, but its only a matter of time before someone decides to be a hero. Wrongful death by police could be used as a means to improve the standard, learn from the mistakes of the past but when we consider people who have CCW ≈ 2% of the US population and climbing the actions of a CCW holder in a state on the east coast most likely will not result in any improvement. But the end result would be that you still have LEO who need more training and you now have CCW holders who are well trained but one does not do the job of the other. Having something like 6million well trained CCW holders in the US does not negate the need for the ≈ 700,000 LEO that is unless you intent to press CCW holder in to police duties. What? Unless you have firearms to feel big and strong it would be for protection and common sense dictates that when shooting at someone they duck unlike most targets. My point is that a CCW holder has none of the information and in fact will make it that much harder for the police to act, if the CCW holders were to be effective they need to act fast and you might be fast on the range but when the bad guy is not entirely too obvious the benefit of having a CCW decreases. So your position is to train civilians to the standard of police officers instead of hiring more police officers and giving them better training?

But the whole point is that you are supporting making my citizenship be less than that of a Canadian born citizen. I might never commit a crime and serve this country faithfully for another 35 years but I will still be only a second class citizen. Unless it has been fraudulently obtained a citizenship should be for life...by the idea you are supporting a naturalized citizen would never be capable of committing treason because the second they do so they will be striped of their citizenship, kinda hard to commit treason against someone else's country.

And that is exacty why this would make Canada a nation with two classes of citizens, the Canadian citizens and then the "Canadian citizen", should this law come in to play we would be one government away from deporting naturalized citizens for lesser and lesser crimes in order to "solve" problems by making the situation much worse.

I am not saying anything in support of those who abuse their Canadian citizenship, my issue is in being considered a second class citizen due to my place of birth. I am not nor do I ever intent to be a terrorist and I am a law abiding citizen who pays his taxes but just because I as an immigrant and can have my citizenship stripped makes me a second class citizen. There are plenty of other ways that can fix the problem without making two Canada's. Unless you can prove that they intended to commit the crime at the time they became a citizen it would automatically make citizenship for Canadians and "Canadians". I have never argued that we should not do something about the problem, we should do everything in our power to fix this problem short of making immigrants a second tier citizens. Solutions could be some of the following: *eliminating dual citizenship *taxing people that live out side of Canada for prolonged periods of time *Tightening up the rules for treason and the punishments so that they could be applied to those who commit them. *Increase the wait time for citizenship and many more...

If that were the law then most would follow follow the law and drop their other citizenship. You don't need a second citizenship to be able to travel freely though. I don't think it does but then again my up to date passport is Canadian as the other one expired 10 years ago.

My loyalties lie here but being a dual citizen allows me to conduct business in much more "friendly" environment rather than going as the Canadian. I am against that, but if that were a requirement I would do so. I am not obligated to do so, and it could prove beneficial in the future. People in Canada are not obligated to compulsory military service and as such people choose to serve or not to serve, likewise I am not obligated to give up my citizenship therefore I will choose wether to do so or not. I put my life where my mouth is, I think that counts just as much...

There is no one single thing or action that will prevent other mass casualty attacks like Sandy Hook but a lot of different actions aimed at preventing such violence can have a great impact overall. And you don't "Take away the cause and reason/desire to kill " by throwing more guns at the problem... making guns available to more people does not solve the problem, solving the underlying issues solve the problem but it seems the NRA is not interested in solving the problem but rather deflecting the blame on to someone else. In my view some of the underlying issues are mental illness and the lack of proper treatment for the mentally ill. Also the fight against gangs being the need to throw as many of them in jail as possible which solve nothing instead of destroying their manpower by giving kids another way out and you defeat gangs without throwing anyone in jail or killing anyone. Put more officers in problem area's and put more services and activities in those areas for the young people. Another big one is bullying. I don't think the medication is to blame in many of the cases but rather the lack of treatment or in some cases a decision to stop taking the medication that kept them from being violent.

Because I can... that is my reason. What is the reason to denounce another citizenship that might prove beneficial in future endeavours? Well because a dual citizenship could prove useful at some point when I leave the military if I decide to do business in eastern europe. A Dual citizenship gives a great advantage when doing business with the nation in question be it Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas. I do support dual citizenship especially when it concerns up and coming nations in Asia and South America which could prove to be major trade partners in the future. In some places representing a Canadian company and going in as a "local" gives you a distinct advantage over going in as a Canadian representative of a Canadian company.

No they don't, but making guns more accessible to them sure doesn't solve the problem either now does it? There are enough idiots with a drivers licence who should not have one makes me lose faith the whole licensing process. And putting a gun in the hands of this genius makes no sense at all: I would prefer to take my chances with a criminal then have this joker come to my rescue. Taking all guns does not solve the problem, it just shifts it to other methods of violence but neither does adding more guns to the equation... fix the underlying issues and you can keep your guns add more guns and we will see more violence without resolution to the problem at hand.

Because I can?

What about those "Canadians" that were born here but moved away when they were children? They don't speak English or French yet they are "Canadian" while those who work hard to make this country a good place to live are not Canadian because they were born elsewhere? Talk about putting an idiotic criteria...