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

[shortlived]

This thread isn't about US Dual Citizenship, and US naturalization law does not apply. The U.S. may have more dual citizens than the entire population of Canada.

That is not a legal possibility of any naturalized US citizens. Well you are just flatly not taking things at the point of the whole. You are not seeing the big picture so it deserves comment to save people from debilitating personal impression on a subject that misdirects them from the truth. Edited February 15, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

That is not a legal possibility of any naturalized US citizens.

No, the renunciation of former citizenship during the U.S. naturalization process is not legal renunciation in other nations.

For instance, the U.S. cannot revoke Canadian citizenship.

Edited February 15, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[guyser]

. The U.S. may have more dual citizens than the entire population of Canada.

Er ..No

Estimates range from 500,000 to 5.7M

We have a few more people than that. Funny the govt doesnt track it.

[cybercoma]

I am pretty sure the US has some form of Dual citizenship.

Considering there are dual Canadian-US citizens, of course it does.

[bush_cheney2004]

Er ..No

Estimates range from 500,000 to 5.7M

We have a few more people than that. Funny the govt doesnt track it.

The actual number of U.S. dual citizens is unknown. There are about 45 million foreign born (legal) U.S. residents, many of whom have been naturalized as U.S. citizens.

[shortlived]

No, the renunciation of former citizenship during the U.S. naturalization process is not legal renunciation in other nations.

For instance, the U.S. cannot revoke Canadian citizenship.

The big picture explains. Red tape does not represent the fact after the matter. You renounce allegiance you arn't a citizen end of story. Oaths bind the contract. If you say, you didn't really mean it when you said your oath of citizenship, you arn't a citizenzen that is defrauding the system of nationalization, you can't renounce allegiance and keep alllegiance at the same time. Its not like every day you can wake up and go, oh, that oath I took for US citizenship yesterday well, I don't really agree today but I'll keep the citizenship anyway.

It doesn't work that way.

The same applies to allegiance for the queen, if you are out you are out. Uh, I don't know I was feeling nostalgic yesterday today I'd install some other guy and let him overthrow the government for cheese? huh, no.

Edited February 15, 2013 by shortlived

[g_bambino]

You renounce allegiance you arn't a citizen end of story.

No, that's not true. It was little covered by the media, but, on Victoria Day in 2004, a guy named Ashok Charles publicly "renounced" the Oath of Allegiance he uttered in 1977; he received communication from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration that this action on his part in no way affected his citizenship. That wasn't because the citizenship remains in spite of the renunciation of allegiance to the personification of the Canadian state, but, rather, because, his renunciation has no legal effect; once given, the allegiance cannot be renounced without giving up citizenship in its entirety. The Oath of Allegiance within the Oath of Citizenship is a promise to recognise the authority of the state (the Queen) and abide by its (her) laws; all citizens must do so as long as they are citizens, or they face the consequences.

[shortlived]

If Canadian citizenship is granted to other nationals by a process defined and administered by government, it is logical to think that such citizenship can be revoked in the very same way.

It isn't. Revocation of Citizenship has been generally only on grounds of fraud in relation to the naturalization process. Until all this terrorism stuff started happening, now there are security certificates and this proposal to revoke terrorists citizenship not through the security certificate process. The other avenue is renunciation via CIC process that being filing the fee,and having another citizenship to which you will take on or have taken on. This nationality stuff Is problematic because Canada doesn't provide nationality it provides citizenship. There are lots of nations in Canada, various first nations,and quebec and "Canada" There are only 3 or so citizenships.. that being cree, six nations and Canadian. (as well commonwealth citizenship to people born before 1982 and after the british subject status was amended. Anyone over around 60 years is Canadian citizen by law but not blood or place of birth but rather act of parliament. Canadian Citizenship didn't exist until about 1947 before that everyone was a British subject, or British protected person etc.. Craig Forcese seems to write on this subject and is apparently a legal academic http://craigforcese....and-oh-cha.html Note the terminology of resident of another country is also used so the restrictions do not seem to be reserved solely for individuals with dual citizenship but rather individuals who would meet the threshold for a self declared renunciation, the concept is the act of carrying out terrorist lifestyle is a communication renouncing ones citizenship. It would be of great interest to know what definition of terrorism is used and how it would be applied. As undeclared acts of violence without a declaration of war (Which is fairly standard in todays war climate) would make many individuals terrorists or supporters of terrorism that is aiding or abetting terrorism, for instance the Canadian government and ministers in funding Israel would be implicated in terrorists acts if that funding were used in an assassination (assasinations being illegal acts of terrorism, and thus the government would loose citizenship if the law was upheld) Making a law like this and not having it political in scope is issued thus turning Canada it a greater kangaroo court.

Edited February 16, 2013 by shortlived