Feds to try to axe citizenship of overseas Canadian terrorists: Kenney

[Michael Hardner]

It's fascinating that some Canadians here do not value their citizenship over another depending on personal advantage, while others do. It's just part of the longer narrative of what it means to be "Canadian".

It means you hold citizenship.

[guyser]

It means you hold citizenship.

Exactly , but some for whatever reason see the evil in the sun rising in the morning.

The truth is, if given or applied and rec'd 10 different citizenships (ridiculous I know) and a world rule came down that everyone must pick one , it would be easy for me if my status is the same, born and raised Canadian

[bush_cheney2004]

But reading comprehension is key...and you havent got it right in this instance.

Somehow I will survive without your interpretation(s).

Not at all. Some people can get another citizenship through marriage. some through birth.

Don't back pedal now...think about that job !

Open your eyes, plenty of reasons why some, and gasp... including americans, can get or have dual citizenship.

Already mentioned above. What was that about reading comprehension ?

[guyser]

Somehow I will survive without your interpretation(s).

Hmm....not sure about that, you like to put intepretations in that didnt exist or expressed for reasons we both know.

Don't back pedal now...think about that job !

naw, no pedalling, just educating someone who had no idea why anyone, including Americans , would or could ever have another citizenship.

You're welcome of course.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmm....not sure about that, you like to put intepretations in that didnt exist or expressed for reasons we both know.

That's OK.....some of us can be certain about such things right away.

naw, no pedalling, just educating someone who had no idea why anyone, including Americans , would or could ever have another citizenship.

Yes, you have explained your method of calculated citizenship advantage. Whatever works for you.

[guyser]

.., just educating someone who had no idea

Yes, .

Ok then.

Whatever works for you

Me , you, the next person, another person in another country , all sorts of people.

Free will and free of myopic jingoism .

Rather enlightening really.

[Wilber]

He was already a citizen of Britain.

The Nickle Resolution was an attempt to stop conferring titles on Canadian only citizens IIRC.

Not according to Chretien.

[Signals.Cpl]

Do any of you think this has something to do with Khadr who will being getting out of jail sometime in the future? The feds didn't want to bring him back to Canada and I'm wondering if they want to ex him out of Canada as soon as he's free??

Where are they going to send Khadr and his family to? Seeing as he was born here... it would only apply to the lesser citizens...you know the once who weren't born here.

[Bonam]

Geez man you're sounding like one of those Republican nutjobs now: Playing the "freedom" card (a completely subjective word), and comparing me to a tyrant. I'm simply stating my opinion, not saying if I were Prime Minister I'd push it through as law without debate or a democratic vote. If you disagree with my opinions, refute them with reasons, which I don't think you've done once in this thread.

Freedom is not "completely subjective". And I have not yet seen any valid reasons presented to restrict individual's freedom to obtain multiple citizenships if throughout the course of their lives they are able to do so.

Given that you're a Canadian expatriate in the US (to my knowledge), I wouldn't find it suprising if you had thought about the possibility of US citizenship, so you have probably have stakes in this debate that are different than most on this forum, therefore your opinions would be interesting.

I've made my opinion very clear. Yes, I have considered US citizenship, and likely will obtain it within about 4-6 years. At that time, I intend to keep my Canadian citizenship as well. And, I don't see any conflict of interest there. If multiple citizenship precludes me from certain jobs that require high levels of security clearance, that's fine, but the mere existence of such jobs should not prevent people not intending to apply for such jobs from holding dual citizenship.

If i ever wanted, but that would be opportunistic citizenship, not true allegiance to that country, which is one of the circumstances I'm arguing against.

What is this "true allegiance" to a country? How much true allegiance do most Canadians or most Americans show to their country, and in what way? Is exhibiting true allegiance to a specific country even a virtue to begin with?

I don't have dual-citizenship, nor have I ever sought the need for it for whatever reason, so maybe I don't fully understand how it benefits Canada?

What is Canada? Canada is the individuals that comprise it, the citizens of Canada. There is no additional value to a collective of people besides the value of the individuals within it. What is good for Canada is what is good for Canadians. And it is good for a Canadian to have the option of moving to a different country, living and working there and gaining its citizenship, and still retaining a Canadian citizenship, should they choose to return to Canada in the future and resume their life in Canada.

The real question is who should be granted citizenship, and what conditions they must meet to be granted it. Clearly, there is a problem/concern with "citizens of convenience". I would much rather make it more difficult to gain a Canadian citizenship in the first place, and/or specify a few crimes/actions in response to which one can be stripped of their citizenship, rather than infringing on the freedoms and life options of law abiding citizens who want the flexibility of full access to more than one country. One can also certainly make rules about residency requirements in Canada in order to be eligible for some/any of the privileges of being a Canadian citizen. All of these would be reasonable and worth discussing. But I see no reason to uniformly forbid dual citizenships, when dual citizenship is something that many Canadians use and find value in.

[ReeferMadness]

The question that comes to mind as I ponder Minister Kenney's grave warnings on terrorists is "Why?" Why is this government obsessed with terrorism? Why not a national strategy on preventing people from getting hit by lightning or a multi-billion-dollar program to save people from drowning in the bathtub? Both occurrences are a far greater threat to most people than dying from a terrorist attack.

The simple answer is that this huge waste of resources is simply a reaction to international fears of terrorism. And those fears are stoked by a new media that is busy 24x7 reporting and over-reporting events around the world. And there is nothing that it likes to report more than violence. But why focus on this concept called terrorism?

Does anyone here understand the definition of a terrorist? That depends on where you live but here's the Canadian definition. Make sure you explain it to the rest of us if you can decipher it. Why do we need special laws on terrorism at all? I thought we already had plenty of laws against killing people and blowing stuff up.

The sad conclusion that I come to about all of this is that these laws aren't about public safety. They're about the politics of fear-mongering and all of the money to be made in the 'security industry'.

Like Hoover's FBI found a "red under every bed", like the CIA systematically grossly over-estimated the threat from communism, so too does the Department of Homeland Security make a practise of fear-mongering. And this is the space where troglodytes like Kenney play.

The Terrorism Delusion is a bit of a read but well worth it. Here is an excerpt:

There is delusion, as well, in the legal expansion of the concept of “weapons of mass destruction.” The concept had once been taken as a synonym for nuclear weapons or was meant to include nuclear weapons as well as weapons yet to be developed that might have similar destructive capacity. After the Cold War, it was expanded to embrace chemical, biological, and radiological weapons even though those weapons for the most part are incapable of committing destruction that could reasonably be considered “massive,” particularly in comparison with nuclear ones.52 And as explicitly rendered into U.S. law, the term was extended even further to include bombs of any kind, grenades, and mines; rockets having a propellant charge of more than four ounces; missiles having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one quarter ounce; and projectile-spewing weapons that have a barrel with a bore more than a half inch in diameter.53 It turns out then that the “shot heard round the world” by revolutionary war muskets was the ªring of a WMD, that Francis Scott Key was exultantly, if innocently, witnessing a WMD attack in 1814; and that Iraq was full of WMD when the United States invaded in 2003— and still is, just like virtually every other country in the world.

Edited February 13, 2013 by ReeferMadness

[nimiru]

It is obvisously a very confusing. Most of the decisions the cons make are arbitrary and all to quick. THey seem to be ruling out of the PM's office rather than the house of commons and it therefore is not surprising that so much confusion is attendent. No discussion is involved.

[Battletoads]

Yes, lets give this rabidly ideological government the right to revoke citizenship if it considers something to be "terrorism".

Lookout all you eco-terrorists, your days waving those banners of mass destruction are limited.

[jacee]

Yes, lets give this rabidly ideological government the right to revoke citizenship if it considers something to be "terrorism".

Lookout all you eco-terrorists, your days waving those banners of mass destruction are limited.

"banners of mass destruction"

And if Indigenous activists create "terror" by - eg- dancing in the streets and their Canadian citizenship gets stripped, they're left with ... Aboriginal sovereignty.

Despite its appeal to the Harper-core-extremist-xenophobes, I can't see anything coming of this.

If you have only Canadian citizenship, it can't be taken away because in international law, a person cannot be left 'stateless'.

So the Harpercrats would be creating a 'second class' of citizens whose citizenship can be taken away.

I don't think it would pass the constitutional smell test, let alone a Supreme Court challenge.

The Harpercrats know that. This isn't even a serious suggestion. It's just political posturing that appeals to their paranoid xenophobe core supporters.

The whole 'terrorism' thing is a sewer, hinging as it does on 'creating fear': Who the hell defines "fear"? The paranoid schizophrenic? The agoraphobic? The xenophobic Harpercrats? Who distinguishes between rational and irrational fear?

The Terrorism Act doesn't require that fear be 'rational'.

Edited February 13, 2013 by jacee

[guyser]

Not according to Chretien.

Not sure what Chretien thought, but Black was a dual citizen at the time. Petty is what Chretien did.

[Moonlight Graham]

The real question is who should be granted citizenship, and what conditions they must meet to be granted it. Clearly, there is a problem/concern with "citizens of convenience". I would much rather make it more difficult to gain a Canadian citizenship in the first place, and/or specify a few crimes/actions in response to which one can be stripped of their citizenship, rather than infringing on the freedoms and life options of law abiding citizens who want the flexibility of full access to more than one country. One can also certainly make rules about residency requirements in Canada in order to be eligible for some/any of the privileges of being a Canadian citizen. All of these would be reasonable and worth discussing. But I see no reason to uniformly forbid dual citizenships, when dual citizenship is something that many Canadians use and find value in.

Yes, one option is to make citizenship requirements stricter. The current residency requirement of 3 years is a bit of a joke. Some of the concerns I've raised can be addressed, at least partially, by changing the rules surrounding citizenship and other laws.

[guyser]

http://news.msn.com/world/struggling-caribbean-islands-sell-a-quick-path-to-citizenship

Didnt know how prevalent this was. Makes sense for many people to take advantage of this.

[PIK]

Not according to Chretien.

What happens if that canadian becomes pope under chretiens rule he will have to give it up.

[guyser]

What happens if that canadian becomes pope under chretiens rule he will have to give it up.

Not at all, there were always exclusions for certain achievements under the Nickle Resolution

[Moonlight Graham]

But I see no reason to uniformly forbid dual citizenships, when dual citizenship is something that many Canadians use and find value in.

BTW, I may very well be wrong in how I'm approaching the issues I have problems with in regarding citizenship. Wilber and yourself have brought up good points where citizenship reform may work instead of banning dual-citizenship outright. Dual-citizenship may not have to be banned, maybe there are certain scenarios where it shouldn't be allowed or not, or maybe reform of citizenship laws/rules can be changed that will fix the problems I see that creep into issues of immigration/emigration , multiple citizenship etc.

My point is that certain issues do exist with dual-citizenship, and they should be rectified in a manner that doesn't create different classes of citizenship or arbitrary stripping of citizenship by the government of the day (or the judges/officers they appoint). It is just disconcerting when there are immigrants (and even the Canada-born children/grandchildren of these immigrants) who become Canadian citizens but, when push comes to shove, are more loyal to another country than to Canada.

[Bonam]

My point is that certain issues do exist with dual-citizenship

Nope, none of the issues you have brought up are issues with dual citizenship. It is entirely possible to be more loyal to a country or organization outside Canada even if you have only one citizenship.

[jacee]

BTW, I may very well be wrong in how I'm approaching the issues I have problems with in regarding citizenship. Wilber and yourself have brought up good points where citizenship reform may work instead of banning dual-citizenship outright. Dual-citizenship may not have to be banned, maybe there are certain scenarios where it shouldn't be allowed or not, or maybe reform of citizenship laws/rules can be changed that will fix the problems I see that creep into issues of immigration/emigration , multiple citizenship etc.

My point is that certain issues do exist with dual-citizenship, and they should be rectified in a manner that doesn't create different classes of citizenship or arbitrary stripping of citizenship by the government of the day (or the judges/officers they appoint). It is just disconcerting when there are immigrants (and even the Canada-born children/grandchildren of these immigrants) who become Canadian citizens but, when push comes to shove, are more loyal to another country than to Canada.

Can you provide some examples of such situations?

[Moonlight Graham]

Nope, none of the issues you have brought up are issues with dual citizenship. It is entirely possible to be more loyal to a country or organization outside Canada even if you have only one citizenship.

So some of the situations that occurred during the 2006 Lebanon War was not an issue of dual-citizenship?

Some of the issues i've brought up are not exclusive to dual-citizenship, I never said they were. And I'm sorry, a person who was born and raised and has family in another country and emigrates into Canada is much more likely to be more loyal to their former country than would their children/grandchlldren etc. who were born in Canada. That's human nature.

[Moonlight Graham]

Can you provide some examples of such situations?

which situations?

[Bonam]

So some of the situations that occurred during the 2006 Lebanon War was not an issue of dual-citizenship?

Some of the issues i've brought up are not exclusive to dual-citizenship, I never said they were. And I'm sorry, a person who was born and raised and has family in another country and emigrates into Canada is much more likely to be more loyal to their former country than would their children/grandchlldren etc. who were born in Canada. That's human nature.

What reason would I have to be loyal to a country which I made the conscious choice to leave in order to live in a better country? A country which made life so miserable that one wanted to escape? Why would one have greater loyalty to a crappy hellhole that they fled from than their wonderful new home? Methinks you are very confused about this "human nature" you speak of.

Furthermore, how is it that you think that Canada forcing people to renounce their former citizenships would make these people more loyal to Canada? If anything, they would be more resentful of Canada for having forced them to give up a useful means of access to other nations.

And yes, the issues in Lebanon had nothing to do with dual citizenship whatsoever. They had to do with two things: 1) It being too easy to get Canadian citizenship in the first place, and 2) Canada offering unnecessary benefits to citizens that have made the conscious choice to live in another country, abide by its laws, and be subject to the risks of living in said country. There is no reason that Canada should feel obligated to come to the rescue of individuals who have chosen to live elsewhere, certainly not in another country where they also hold citizenship.

Think about it. If and when I gain US citizenship, I don't expect Canadian forces to come and evacuate me from America in case of civil unrest or warfare. Why would I? It's ridiculous.

Once again, none of the problems you describe have anything to do with dual citizenship.

[Signals.Cpl]

Think about it. If and when I gain US citizenship, I don't expect Canadian forces to come and evacuate me from America in case of civil unrest or warfare. Why would I? It's ridiculous.

Once again, none of the problems you describe have anything to do with dual citizenship.

But there were those who were just visiting, vacationing or doing business and just happened to be in the wrong place and the wrong time people that Canada has an obligation to protect just like every other nations with the means to do so tried. It is nice and easy to say that those who lived in Lebanon were not owed anything in the first place but when suddenly 15,000 people show up at the door step of a few dozen embassy staff it is hard to determine who should be evacuated and who would not qualify for evacuation due to residency...

Plus add to that the fact that we may have Canadians who have perfectly legitimate reasons to be in the country in question for prolonged period of time such as family medical emergencies, situation where the family member is sick and not a citizen so can't bring them here nor can you leave them to die so it becomes that much harder to judge who is or is not qualified for an evacuation. We end up with rules that are either to vague and many people get denied evacuation or the rules are to strict and only a few cases are denied...

There are many options but considering the once when the people making the decision are under pressure might not be the best time to decide... the decisions should be made when a discussion can be held and we can take our time rather than making the decision when the rounds start coming at you.