shortlived Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) Can we not agree that some acts that would be considered terrorist acts are good? You know like blowing up a building to get at people you don't like? Or destabilizing a corrupt government? If the conservatives are so pro Zionist then how can they hate terrorism? Ben Guiron was a terrorist, he was the lifeblood of early Israel. The US has drones that are randomly blowing up people, apparently even US citizens (but often just random Pakistani villagers). I think if doing tit for tat, the conservatives can't be serious that all terrorism is bad, otherwise they just look like they are ignorant and conflicted. Now firing on CF personnel, offensively, not in self defence is another matter completely, but terrorism, I thought this was one of those, who are your terrorizing issues. Apparently if it is Muslims being terrorized its not terrorism, only maybe war crimes if you loose the war against NATO. Edited February 9, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 (edited) When Muslims are terrorized it most certainly is terrorism. When a Sunni straps on a modified tool belt and detonates in a Shi'ite market it would make my definition. As for the drones, they do the opposite of randomly blow up people. That's why so many people are whining about the odd US citizen being nailed by them. They are targeting them. I think blowing up a building to get at people you don't like is okay if the people you don't like are in the building. It's less okay if it's done just to irritate them at some other location. Edited February 9, 2013 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 I'm in the same boat as you, immigrant to Canada (and now to the US as well). And I certainly agree that a naturalized citizen should not be relegated to some kind of second class citizen status. But I find a few problems with your argument: - Canada is an attractive enough place for immigration, we have nothing to fear on that front 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. - Citizens of a country are not like children of a parent, it is a terrible analogy 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. But the most significant point is I don't buy the slippery slope argument in this case. 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... Canada is a nation of laws, and if we had an official law for stripping people of citizenship in connection with terrorist and treasonous acts, such acts and the process for stripping citizenship would be well defined. 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. There is no indication or reason to believe that a law designed to deal with terrorists would morph over time to apply the same penalty for lesser crimes, illnesses, or financial problems. 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? Already, terrorists are liable to be killed by drones, assassinated by special forces, etc, whether they be Canadian citizens or not. I'm just not worried that a cop will strip me of my citizenship for speeding as a result of this law dealing with terrorists. 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 we need to deal with terrorists, it's not a problem that should be ignored. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 Agreed. Dual citizenship should be eliminated for all adults at least. I don't agree. If I work in another country, I want the option to return to Canada if I have to take citizenship of that country. Why should we remove a right enjoyed by many hard working Canadians - especially professionals - only in order to provide some kind of slap-on-the-wrist punishment that could theoretically be applied to terrorists ? We're now starting to take this feel-good legislation to a point where it affects Canadians negatively. At that point, the emotional overcomes the practical and it's just stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 Can anyone point to an actual problem with having dual citizenship ? Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 It's ok too. Getting a citizenship takes a long time in most countries. If someone wants to spend 3-10 years in one country after another, collect their citizenship, and then move on to get their next one, thus accumulating maybe 10 or so citizenships over their lifetime, why not? Most countries won't let you accumulate two, even. I spoke to someone who knew about this and - at the time - he told me that Canada allowed for triple citizenship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 As a Canadian, you can have as many citizenships as you want. Any restrictions would be from other countries. Evidently, as Bonam said, it's very difficult to get citizenship of most countries. You normally have to be 1) born there, or 2) have parents born there (sometimes grandparents will qualify you). Not even marrying gets you citizenship to most countries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 Wasn't there something that Kenney went after people mostly from Britain that came here before/after 1947 when Canadians became Canadians not not British subjects? I can't remember all the facts on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 We already have a procedure in place. The govt can revoke the passport of these people. That way they can't travel or operate as a Canadian citizen. They can demand to be let back in, as the Kadhrs did, but if they do something we can prosecute them here for they have to face that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) Wasn't there something that Kenney went after people mostly from Britain that came here before/after 1947 when Canadians became Canadians not not British subjects? I can't remember all the facts on that. I know someone personally that had an issue with this. I don't know all the details. I do know she was here before 1947 from Britain, never bothered becoming a Canadian citizen and had a huge headache this year dealing with it, despite being in her 70s. And living here her entire life. Edited February 10, 2013 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleipnir Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) We already have a procedure in place. The govt can revoke the passport of these people. That way they can't travel or operate as a Canadian citizen. But no procedure for those who are born from tourists who comes to Canada exclusively to give birth. Edited February 10, 2013 by Sleipnir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 But no procedure for those who are born from tourists who comes to Canada exclusively to give birth. Different matter. I think we should grant birth citizenship only to people who's parents are at least permanent residents in Canada - ie no tourists or temp workers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) Can anyone point to an actual problem with having dual citizenship ? - The 2006 Lebanon War example: http://en.wikipedia...._of_convenience - What about conflict of interest during times of war between the two countries a dual-citizen is a part of? ie: if say Canada goes to war with another country, and both countries institute military conscription? Now dual-citizens of Canada and the other country must choose between which or their 2 countries to fight for/against. A conflict of interest, see. With only 1 citizenship allowed, the primary allegiance has already been chosen by the citizen (technically, unless they take part in treason). - true story: I had a friend who lived in Canada his whole life but then moved to Britain about 10 years ago for work, and he lived there for a few years. Once he was eligible to become a citizen of Britain after a few years, he became one. Did so for tax purposes and whatnot. A year later he got a better job offer in East Asia and has lived there ever since, with no real reason or intention of ever returning to Britain. Ridiculous. In my opinion, you're either in or you're out. Choose your allegiance. People can (and do) take advantage of dual-citizenship for a plethora of reasons without really giving much of a hoot about being Canadian. The government is not making them to be "second-class citizens", they are acting that way themselves. There is a spectrum of Canadians, where on one end there are those who really love the Canada and want to be a part of it and contribute to making it a better place, and on the other end there are people who really don't give much of a crap about Canada (compared to other nationalities they may have) other than the convenient rights that its citizenship affords them...including those who haven't even stepped foot in Canada a day in their lives! There are also people who fall anywhere in between these 2 polar ends. A single citizenship greatly helps ensure that more Canadians are closer to that 1st end of the spectrum. Edited February 10, 2013 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 - What about conflict of interest during times of war between the two countries a dual-citizen is a part of? ie: if say Canada goes to war with another country, and both countries institute military conscription? Now dual-citizens of Canada and the other country must choose between which or their 2 countries to fight for/against. A conflict of interest, see. With only 1 citizenship allowed, the primary allegiance has already been chosen by the citizen (technically, unless they take part in treason). 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. - true story: I had a friend who lived in Canada his whole life but then moved to Britain about 10 years ago for work, and he lived there for a few years. Once he was eligible to become a citizen of Britain after a few years, he became one. Did so for tax purposes and whatnot. A year later he got a better job offer in East Asia and has lived there ever since, with no real reason or intention of ever returning to Britain. Ridiculous. And what is the solution? Take away his citizenship? In my opinion, you're either in or you're out. Choose your allegiance. 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. People can (and do) take advantage of dual-citizenship for a plethora of reasons without really giving much of a hoot about being Canadian. 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. The government is not making them to be "second-class citizens", they are acting that way themselves. How so? You want to make my citizenship be lesser then that of someone born here that is the definition of second class citizen. There is a spectrum of Canadians, where on one end there are those who really love the Canada and want to be a part of it and contribute to making it a better place, and on the other end there are people who really don't give much of a crap about Canada (compared to other nationalities they may have) other than the convenient rights that its citizenship affords them...including those who haven't even stepped foot in Canada a day in their lives! There are also people who fall anywhere in between these 2 polar ends. A single citizenship greatly helps ensure that more Canadians are closer to that 1st end of the spectrum. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 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. Signals.....all your slippery-slope arguments are addressed by our Charter - and the Supreme Court. Now that you are a Canadian, you have to believe in the checks and balances that history have provided us. If any government goes too far, the Supreme Court has it's say - not to mention that Canadians can vote them out of office and the next government can change the law. I understand that there is no use debating further with you - you feel the way you do - and it appears to be unshakeable. As I said previously, Newer Canadians are likely the ones who would agree most with Dual Citizens losing their Canadian citizenship if they are found to be guilty of terrorism. But that's the beauty of Canada - you're entitled to your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 Signals.....all your slippery-slope arguments are addressed by our Charter speaking of the Charter, just how does your favoured 2-tier citizenship fit within Section 15 - you know, the section guaranteeing every Canadian is entitled to equal treatment under the law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortlived Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) So 5 years of service to Canada and I am a second rate citizen? And 30 more years will do nothing to change that? I am a second class citizen behind even rapists and murderers simply because I was born in another country? Is that true? What have you done to be different then me? I was born outside of Canada but have lived in Canada for far longer then outside of Canada, I have given more of myself to Canada then to my country of birth yet I can never be truly a Canadian. What about those born in Canada but raised with the values of their home country? Are they less Canadian then you? What defines a Canadian? Your words? Your beliefs? Your actions? Or is it simply the lottery of where you were born? What makes someone who was born here yet never worked a day in their life and is this very day sitting on welfare better then me, someone who has worked for the last 10 years since I was 15 and 5 of those years are in the CANADIAN Forces... Who is to say in 10 years this idiotic idea will not be expanded to include other crimes no matter how minor? That or the not quite Canadians of us will vote for them. Tough decisions? Like alienating a large segment of the population? Including people who have given more to Canada then many born here? Just so you know Citizenship is just a way of controlling people. It isn't really much of a benefit over residence. The system is totally corrupt and politically charged anyway. As for 5 years of service..... that really isn't much 20 years deserves something for sure. one term in actually doesn't really show much loyalty now two terms that is another issue.. people give their entire life to service. Citizenship is just a form of cattle anyway. If they are out there killing Canadian forces it either demostrates an extremely corrupt government or someone who doesn't really represent Canadian values. The issue with revoking citizenship though for only dual citizens seems biased. I do think there should be roughly equivolent treatment.. but I do think there should be two classes of Ctizienship. Initial naturalization and "equalized naturalization which would come into effect after in this case a certain amount of financial input or volunteerism, and activity. 5 years is quite insignifigant though. Not to make your contributions seem little 5 years is better than no years of course. Little kids each year have volunteer activities, they take part in propaganda to learn "the current canadian values" in highschool they put in some hours of community service. Then they work in many cases.. this is oh 12+ years of indoctrination of Canadian values. Not all Canadians born in Canada stay in Canada after birth though. But this two classes of Canadians based on naturalization or not is very American -- re felonies.. naturalized americans who commit felonies can loose their citizenship.. this is the inching in factor.. first terrorist then serious criminals. It can be seen a mile away... just like all these inching in on crime.. now mentally ill people "at the time of the crime" will be kept in psych wards even after doctors feel they have rehabilitated. Or the reviews will come every 3 years instead of every year? Because we want to keep them insitutionalized longer even if they have rehabilitated. I think we need to look at recidivism rates on mental illness crimes for this. These " victims can keep them in jail longer" aspect is just representing a sick society, that wants to ruin peoples lives instead of healing society. Those rejects who want vengence by keeping people in jail don't deserve their own freedom, it is a perverse justice concept.. .depriving freedom is not a social value that should be supported if it doesn't equate into making society function better. Peoples own evil psychological issues are issues they should deal with. Someone being in jail or not means very little, if a doctor feels they won't recommit what is the Fing issue? Note I opted to renounce my citizenship.. and you know what, it wasn't legally possible in Canada, cause you have to be a citizen of another country to renounce your citizenship. That is probably why they are only doing it for dual nationals. Also I do have another "citizenship" commonwealth citizenship, but Canada doesn't officially recognize British Subject status anymore, and the UK no longer allows reversion of citizenship to British Citizenship from when they changed their own British Nationality Act. Due to international convetion Canada is not allowed to support statelessness. And they arn't willing to recognize self recognized soverignty of an individual who claims microstate status. (not only because it is wierd but they want to control people, they don't support individual freedom from the machinations of mega nationstates.) The point here is, it is likely less so a dual nationality issue and more of a Sole citizenship is not all to possible for Canada to revoke... due to the statelessness issue. They would actually sort of revert to british subject status, and the commonwealth nations are trying to exinct the Queens control and reciprocation of subject status and replace it with parliamentary nationality/citizenship which parliament exercises authority rather than the monarch, even with an oath of allegiance still inclued, it is problematic to say the least due to the national non recognition of british subject status, or subject status to a monarch itself at law, so the oath of allegiance is a ceremonial concept since the ministires themselves don't recotnize subject status. (especially in Canada) The point being, I don' t think it is a he ain't Canadian factor, or a we don't want you anymore cause you are brown, I think it is a well we'd get rid of Khadr too but he was born here and we arn't allowed to make the DP's that is too jewish. Ok the Jewish factor probably isn't there for the propaganda.. but it is legal issue not that law has ever prevented the CPC from making new "rules" that violate the convetions. Frankly some blond Canadian probably isn't from Pakistan. So this as a response to north Africa just doesn't line up. Note this little fact about young Khadr " would often quote Captain Haddock from " How Al Qaeda like is freaken TINTIN? He shot muslims in the desert for crying out loud. Haddoc was a drunk too, muslims don't drink. His childhood idol was a narcotics smugler for crying out loud Edited February 10, 2013 by shortlived Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 Signals.....all your slippery-slope arguments are addressed by our Charter - and the Supreme Court. When it’s your citizenship that someone is trying to marginalize then we can talk until then I will be suspicious of such moves on the grounds that this has happened before in Canada and the US both of which are nations with such checks and balances and if it has happened before who is to say it won’t happen again? Now that you are a Canadian, you have to believe in the checks and balances that history have provided us. Where were the checks and balances for the people interned during both World Wars? And to be fair I have spent more of my life in Canada then Europe and all of my adult life has been here so I am as much Canadian as anyone else. If any government goes too far, the Supreme Court has it's say - not to mention that Canadians can vote them out of office and the next government can change the law. I am not afraid of any one government going too far I am afraid of successive government making small changes that ultimately lead to a different reality for immigrants, history is filled with examples of things going too far over a long enough time just as the reverse situation is true where things get better little by little over time. Small changes now and then and in 20 years it might turn out that I am just renting this citizenship as long as it pleases the "real" Canadians. I understand that there is no use debating further with you - you feel the way you do - and it appears to be unshakeable. Because this solves absolutely nothing but makes a large segment of the population second class citizens. Seems to me that you don’t want a solution but rather the appearance of a solution As I said previously, Newer Canadians are likely the ones who would agree most with Dual Citizens losing their Canadian citizenship if they are found to be guilty of terrorism. But that's the beauty of Canada - you're entitled to your opinion. When you swear the oath for citizenship would we add that you are Canadian as long as you are doing well but once you screw up you are someone else’s problem? And how would you judge terrorism? I go to Syria as an aid worker and they say I'm a terrorist do I lose my citizenship? What happens if someone loses their citizenship and turns out they were not involved with terrorism? You want to revoke the passports of those involved with terrorism or suspected of terrorism then by all means do so until such a time as they stop being a threat but do not make a double standard where I am worthy of being a Canadian as long as I do what is expected and the second someone says I’m a terrorist I stop being Canadian... that’s like adopting a kid and saying that you are our child as long as you are good, if you screw up we send you back to the orphanage while at the same time telling your biological kid that you love them no matter what and nothing will change that. You can’t return me to my country of birth if I don’t meet your expectations; a citizenship is for life unless obtained under fraudulent conditions... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 And what is the solution? Take away his citizenship? Solution is one citizenship. If he wants to be British, renounce his Canadians citizenship. 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. Which is why we should be promoting Canadian nationalism much better, such as more history being taught in our schools. 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 have I said anything of the sort? I have no problem with immigrants, only those with a fractioned allegiance to Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Solution is one citizenship. If he wants to be British, renounce his Canadians citizenship. And what exactly would that accomplish? This would not make him any more loyal to Canada, if he decides to keep Canadian citizenship he will be of little benefit to the country anyway.Which is why we should be promoting Canadian nationalism much better, such as more history being taught in our schools. I am all for that, I had one Canadian history class in high school that was mandatory and that was it, each grade should get one history class at least but this doesn't mean anything if we teach the wrong history to further our agenda... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'm against dual citizenship anyway. Life is built on making good decisions, so make one. At the very least there should be a time limit on dual citizenship, after which one should be required to decide what they are. Say five years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 I think all you single citizens are just jealous. I don't have dual citizenship so no one can have it! There is absolutely nothing wrong with having dual citizenship in general, and if some of the extremely unlikely hypothetical scenarios here presented come to pass (drafts in both countries a person is a citizen of fighting each other, etc) then they should be dealt with on a case by case basis as appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Solution is one citizenship. If he wants to be British, renounce his Canadians citizenship. Which is why we should be promoting Canadian nationalism much better, such as more history being taught in our schools. How have I said anything of the sort? I have no problem with immigrants, only those with a fractioned allegiance to Canada. That's ridiculous. Many families consist of parents with differing citizenships and children with both. This xenophobia has to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Let me get this straight... a newborn of Canuck born and bred parents waits...but a newborn to parents who became citizens are automatically included? No, not unless both parents are Canadian citizens. If a German couple land for a holiday and give birth, the baby is not a Canuck Yes and no. Immigrants in the class of permanent status waiting for Canuck citizenship who have a baby , the baby gets it automatically. Foreign workers do not get their baby a Canuck passport. Same goes for embassy and consulate members. http://en.wikipedia....nationality_law Then something is lost in your post. The baby automatically is a Canadian This was not always the case, This law just changed in 2009, and was reverted back to 1977. So that German couple , who's baby was born in Canada before 1977 has a Dual citizenship, same goes for diplomatic workers. In general, if you were born in Canada, you are a Canadian citizen. If you were born in Canada after February 14, 1977, and at the time of your birth, your parents were not Canadian citizens or permanent residents, and at least one parent had diplomatic status in Canada, you are not a citizen. If you were born in Canada before February 15, 1977 to a parent who was a foreign diplomat in Canada, contact CIC for more information on eligibility.http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/dual-citizenship.asp Canadian citizenship law before February 15, 1977, limited dual citizenship. Many individuals who became citizens of another country before that date lost their Canadian citizenship. However, on April 17, 2009, a new law came into effect that automatically restored citizenship to many of those individuals who lost it under the previous citizenship law and automatically gave citizenship to others who never had it. If you think this applies to you and you have questions, please contact us. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/dual-citizenship.asp http://blog.lostcanadian.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) And what exactly would that accomplish? This would not make him any more loyal to Canada, if he decides to keep Canadian citizenship he will be of little benefit to the country anyway. It would be of great benefit to Britain, because if he had to renounce any other citizenships he certainly wouldn't have taken that decision to become British so lightly. It would require more allegiance to Britain from him because he's showing more of a commitment to the country if it's his one and only nationality. I am all for that, I had one Canadian history class in high school that was mandatory and that was it, each grade should get one history class at least but this doesn't mean anything if we teach the wrong history to further our agenda... I agree. I'm not talking about propaganda, just history and knowledge of the country. Edited February 11, 2013 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.