Wilber Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 They are currently treated equally under the law: This introduces unequal treatment of some citizens for some infractions. It could be challenged based on "national or ethnic origin" equality rights. Harper does crap like this to appeal to his extremist core supporters: It sounds nice and nasty to them so it gets him support ... but it will never hold up against a challenge in the Supreme Court. He's really just scamming his less-than-brilliant core supporters into thinkling he's doing something they'll like. I agree with this. If want to be a dual citizen, think twice before you abuse your Canadian citizenship. That isn't extremism. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
jacee Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 I agree with this. If want to be a dual citizen, think twice before you abuse your Canadian citizenship. That isn't extremism. Yah well like I said ... it will never hold up against a challenge in the Supreme Court.He's really just scamming his less-than-brilliant core supporters into thinking he's doing something they'll like. Quote
Wilber Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 but it will never hold up against a challenge in the Supreme Court. Perhaps. Maybe that is why it should be tested in court. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
jacee Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 Perhaps. Maybe that is why it should be tested in court.ok by me Quote
Wilber Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 Me to. I don't presume to know how the Supremes would rule on the validity of a law that hasn't been passed concerning a case that hasn't happened. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
jacee Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 Me to. I don't presume to know how the Supremes would rule on the validity of a law that hasn't been passed concerning a case that hasn't happened.Me neither, but I do think it's tacky to create two classes of citizens. I am curious though: Do we pay the cost of incarcerating them here once convicted, then strip them of citizenship and deport them after? Or do we save the money by deporting them straightaway? Now there's a conundrum for Conservatives! . Quote
Wilber Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 Sounds like an option to me, not a conundrum. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
jacee Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 Sounds like an option to me, not a conundrum.Well ... what do you think?Save $70,000 a year, deport a terrorist to go free? Quote
Army Guy Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 ???? Criminal charges always have to be proven before conviction and punishment can be applied. A lot of opinion and broad assumption and no facts. Why are you intentionally derailing this thread with this entirely irrelevant personal opinion rant ? Pick a topic RELEVANT to the bill, and this thread: -Canadians convicted of terrorism, espionage or treason, or who take up arms against Canada, would be stripped of their citizenship provided they are dual nationals, meaning they have citizenship in another country. The key changes: -Fees for citizenship applications will increase to $300 from $100. By comparison, fees are $670 in the United States and $1,600 in the United Kingdom. -Only immigrants who have been physically present in Canada four of the past six years would quality for citizenship. Time spent in Canada without permanent resident status would no longer count towards citizenship. -Those applying for citizenship must file Canadian income taxes, which is not currently a requirement. -Applicants 14-65 must pass the language and knowledge test, which will be administered in English or French. Currently only applicants 18-54 must do so, and they may take the knowledge test with an interpreter. -Penalties for fraud will increase to a maximum of $100,000 and five years in prison (from $1,000 and one year). -Permanent residents serving in the Canadian Armed Forces would qualify for citizenship one year sooner than other applicants. -The proposed legislation would streamline the application process by allowing citizenship officers to make decisions on applications, something only citizenship judges can do now. -The immigration minister would have the final say in decisions to revoke citizenship, not the governor in council, as is the case now. It should make you happy to note that penalties for citizenship fraud are increased substantially by this bill. Stripping dual nationals of Canadian citizenship for treason is an additional punishment that can't be applied to other citizens. So we would have '2nd class citizens. I'm interested in your opinion of the last two points, Argus, putting citizenship decisions totally in bureaucratic and political hands instead of judges and governor in council. . When was the last time we tried anyone for terrorism or treason ? Omar was convicted of murder not terrorism, nor treason ? why is that....so really this has lost all it's shiny parts....what are we debating again.... Not sure how you get second class citizen, those indiv effected have 2 citizenships, they are in a sparate group on to themselfs, ist class citizens if you will .... perhaps you should be asking why they have this privilige to start with and not everyone else, simplify it and make it manatory to only have one citizenship , make them chose or stay home..want to go back to the home land then re apply... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 Well ... what do you think? Save $70,000 a year, deport a terrorist to go free? Just a few days ago you wanted to free Khadr, here in Canada.... so why the double standard ? Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Wilber Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 Well ... what do you think? Save $70,000 a year, deport a terrorist to go free? It would depend on the circumstances and whether that person represented a continued threat to this country if let free. I would also point out that one doesn't need to be a citizen in order to go to jail. Like I said, an option rather than a conundrum. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 There is already a law against fraudulent marriage for citizenship. I assume the authorities have ways of investigating it. But that isn't even the topic of this thread, not even mentioned in the citizenship reform bill. Are you derailing on purpose? I'm discussing something which SHOULD have been in the reform bill. You have a problem with that don't read it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 ???? Criminal charges always have to be proven before conviction and punishment can be applied. I wasn't talking about a criminal charge. I was suggesting that if they make a habit of sending people back home whenever their 'marriage' ends shortly after they get here they don't need to bother with criminal charges. Why are you intentionally derailing this thread with this entirely irrelevant personal opinion rant ? Quit whining because I'm talking about something you don't want to hear. Just put your hands over your eyes and go "Nananananananana!" and your brain will be safe from any uncomfortable thoughts. I'm interested in your opinion of the last two points, Argus, putting citizenship decisions totally in bureaucratic and political hands instead of judges and governor in council. . What difference does it make? Any order to leave will immediately be appealed to the courts anyway. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 I wasn't talking about a criminal charge. I was suggesting that if they make a habit of sending people back home whenever their 'marriage' ends shortly after they get here they don't need to bother with criminal charges. Already available to Deport if found to be fraudulent marriage. Very hard to prove obviously so most cases arent. On the plus side, the sponsor still has to support her or him for 3 years. Problem solved. Quote
jacee Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) When was the last time we tried anyone for terrorism or treason ? http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/story.html?id=9487733http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ontario_terrorism_plot I don't know if any of them were dual citizens, though. Omar was convicted of murder not terrorism, nor treason ? why is that.Ask the USA, but maybe because he was a minor coerced by parents and the USA court didn't want to open that can of worms....so really this has lost all it's shiny parts....what are we debating again....See thread title.Not sure how you get second class citizen, those indiv effected have 2 citizenships, they are in a sparate group on to themselfs Because some citizens should not be punished more than others for the same crime. The Constitution says we are all equal under the law., ist class citizens if you will .... perhaps you should be asking why they have this privilige to start with and not everyone else, Every Canadian does have that right, if you qualify for citizenship in another country.simplify it and make it manatory to only have one citizenship , make them chose or stay home..want to go back to the home land then re apply...Why should my grandchildren not have citizenship in the countries of both their father and their mother, once they qualify? Get a friggen grip, Army Guy!! Perhaps you should refocus on what is and is not wrongdoing, and stop trying to take our freedoms away from those who've not done anything wrong!!! Edited February 10, 2014 by jacee Quote
Wilber Posted February 10, 2014 Report Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) As a Canadian you don't have a right to the citizenship of another country. Canada cannot bestow that right. Edited February 10, 2014 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
jacee Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) Just a few days ago you wanted to free Khadr, here in Canada.... so why the double standard ?I'm asking someone a hypothetical question, not stating my opinion.This isn't relevant to Khadr: He wasn't convicted of terrorism and he isn't a dual citizen. It might be relevant to his mother IF she's a dual citizen AND can be convicted of facilitating terrorism. Edited February 11, 2014 by jacee Quote
jacee Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 As a Canadian you don't have a right to the citizenship of another country. Canada cannot bestow that right.Canada does give us the right to hold dual citizenship, if we qualify elsewhere ... obviously. Quote
Army Guy Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 http://www.ottawacitizen.com/touch/story.html?id=9487733 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Ontario_terrorism_plot I don't know if any of them were dual citizens, though. Ask the USA, but maybe because he was a minor coerced by parents and the USA court didn't want to open that can of worms. See thread title. Because some citizens should not be punished more than others for the same crime. The Constitution says we are all equal under the law. Every Canadian does have that right, if you qualify for citizenship in another country. Why should my grandchildren not have citizenship in the countries of both their father and their mother, once they qualify? Get a friggen grip, Army Guy!! Perhaps you should refocus on what is and is not wrongdoing, and stop trying to take our freedoms away from those who've not done anything wrong!!! Two cases out of the hundrds that already have or are still involved in terrorism or fighting in another war. Perhaps this bill will give the law authorities more teeth, but so far it really does not change a whole lot, as for the last charge person for treason was in WWII , before that in 1864...Maybe that is why they did not go down that path. http://c2cjournal.ca/2010/03/the-rise-of-treason-and-the-decline-of-canadianbased-terror-threats/ http://c2cjournal.ca/2010/03/has-treason-run-its-course-in-canada/ Another cause for concern is the loss of control of our immigration program. Most immigrants coming to Canada are not interviewed by a Canadian visa officer. Most of the processing is done on paper, and there is no time for personal interviews or for counselling. Only about 10 per cent of newcomers have gone through a security screening. It is assumed that all immigrants will become settled if they meet the selection criteria or are sponsored by relatives who can look after them and help them settle. The personal suitability of immigrants can no longer be taken into account. In the selection of applicants for the job market, suitability is considered the most important qualification, but when we are selecting new citizens for Canada, personal suitability as a factor in selection is prohibited. In the last 25 years, our asylum system has allowed more than 700,000 people to enter Canada simply by claiming to be persecuted in their own countries. None was pre-screened for medical, criminal or security issues, and many were smuggled into the country by international criminal gangs. In 2005, citizens of 152 different countries – including states known to produce terrorists – made asylum claims. The Fraser Institute reported that of 25 suspected terrorists in Canada, 16 had entered as asylum seekers – including the notorious Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian terrorist who attempted to blow up the Los Angeles airport on the eve of the millennium http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/nwsrm/bckgrndrs/bckgrndr08-eng.asp In 2005, the respected U.S. Pew Research Center conducted a global attitude study that found that 80 per cent of Canadian Muslims identified themselves as moderates. This is a comforting figure, but on the other hand, 14 per cent of those polled identified with extremist Islam. Since the total Muslim population in Canada is approximately 750,000, the 14 per cent figure should be cause for concern. These are just a few reasons why we must consider changing our immigration policy and why it is not a good idea to have dual citizenship, and while i'm all for having your grand kids having dual citizenship, these guys in the above examples have screwed that up for them, not me it was them.... The Asia Pacific Foundation reported in October 2009 that an estimated 2.8-million Canadians were living abroad. The absurdity of this “citizenship for convenience” was illustrated when the Canadian taxpayer was obliged during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to pay for the evacuation of 15,000 Lebanese Canadians. After the fighting ended, more than 7,000 returned to Lebanon. Above is another reason, 2.8 million Canadians live abroad, now granted alot of them are craving out a living overseas....but most are Canadians of convinence they enjoy having dual citizenship, but they don't want to live in Canada, they don't want to pay our taxes,or enjoy our butiful climate, and yet they can still can vote, effect our policies and lifes....they can be rescued on our dime all they got to do is call...The example above is but one, not sure if your familar with Lebanon, but it's still a war zone if compared to anything in Canada and those with dual citizenship returned instead of staying in Canada...So someone has got to ask why ? why would they apply to be a Canadian citizens if they don't want to live here....And why do we allow it ? Another question that has to be asked, is where do their loyalities lie, many Canadians have left to fight in wars in what they consider their home lands....and yet they live in Canada,to some this would not be a problem, but what if Canada is one of the nations who they are fighting, Like Omar and his merry band of brothers.... Although the term was used by others (such as Peter Worthington of the Toronto Sun) earlier during the conflict in Lebanon, it was made most prominent by posts by Garth Turner, a then Conservative MP for Halton, on his blog, and the subsequent reactions. Turner questioned the fairness of paying CAD$75,000 for each evacuee, saying, among other things, "that’s a hell of a lot of money to donate to people who do not live here, don’t pay taxes here, and may never come here again in their lives."[1] The actual cost was about $6,300 for each evacuee ($94 million for 15,000 people).[2] The National Post has asserted, that of the 15,000 evacuated, about 7,000 may have returned to Lebanon within a month of being evacuated.[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians_of_convenience http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/07/13/passports-of-convenience-stir-strong-canadian-debate/ http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1179837-reports-ns-native-dies-in-syrian-conflict http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toronto-18-member-killed-fighting-in-syria-1.1470879 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/syria-conflict-attracts-canadians-to-fight-on-front-line-1.1394469 http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/02/03/canadians-fighting-in-syria-could-pose-immediate-threat-to-national-security-when-they-return-csis/ Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Argus Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 Already available to Deport if found to be fraudulent marriage. Very hard to prove obviously so most cases arent. On the plus side, the sponsor still has to support her or him for 3 years. Problem solved. Uh, how is that a problem solved? By your own admission it's very hard to prove -- which means charges are very rarely ever laid. The sponsor has to suppport them? Oh that's just lovely. So let me get this straight. Some sleazy SOB romances a lonely Canadian, pesuades them they're in love, gets them to sponsor them to Canada, then gives them the kiss-off, and that poor stunned individual has to continue to support the sleazy one for three years before they become fully "Canadian" and entitled to all the benefits of being one. And that's problem solved to you? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 Army Guy, on 11 Feb 2014 - 08:25 AM, said: In the last 25 years, our asylum system has allowed more than 700,000 people to enter Canada simply by claiming to be persecuted in their own countries. None was pre-screened for medical, criminal or security issues, and many were smuggled into the country by international criminal gangs. do you have a cite for that? My numbers suggest much less than that. Quote
guyser Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 Uh, how is that a problem solved?Its solved the economic crisis you like to talk about. The Sponsor has to be the freight for all social services. Presumably the sponsor could also help immigration folks to expose the spouse as a fraud. By your own admission it's very hard to prove -- which means charges are very rarely ever laid.Thats because there are not many of them . Kind of like treason. The sponsor has to suppport them? Oh that's just lovely. So let me get this straight. Some sleazy SOB romances a lonely Canadian, pesuades them they're in love, gets them to sponsor them to Canada, then gives them the kiss-off, and that poor stunned individual has to continue to support the sleazy one for three years before they become fully "Canadian" and entitled to all the benefits of being one. And that's problem solved to you? Ok...then the alternative is the govt decides if your spouse to be if worthy. You dont believe in free choice much do you? Besides, there is a financial penalty to pay if the lonely hoodwinked Canuck makes a poor choice. The person still has to pay the bill. Not to mention pretty much all your concerns so far have been already (and were already) covered. Quote
Argus Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 Its solved the economic crisis you like to talk about. The Sponsor has to be the freight for all social services. First, I don't recall mentioning any 'economic crisis'. Perhaps you could point out to me where I did? In regard to this particular bit of fraud my concerns are multiple. One, we're letting sleazy, lying con-artists come to Canada and become Canadian citizens. Not sure why you think that's a good idea, but I disagree. Two, sleazy, lying con-artists are probably going to wind up taking the government for every penny they can once the three years is up. Thirdly, many of the sponsors can't or won't pay. Fourthly, there's my fundamental interest in justice, and in not allowing cretins to get away with stuff like this. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 First, I don't recall mentioning any 'economic crisis'. Perhaps you could point out to me where I did?Any discussion with you about refugees/immigrants is always about economics. What else could there be? If it isnt an economic hardship nor any social services rendered (apart from sponsor support which is private )then what is the problem? Plainly social ? In regard to this particular bit of fraud my concerns are multiple. One, we're letting sleazy, lying con-artists come to Canada and become Canadian citizens. Not sure why you think that's a good idea, but I disagree. Two, sleazy, lying con-artists are probably going to wind up taking the government for every penny they can once the three years is up. Thirdly, many of the sponsors can't or won't pay. Fourthly, there's my fundamental interest in justice, and in not allowing cretins to get away with stuff like this.So in other words it is economics at play here is it? One, we try and see our way thru sleazy lying con artists all the time. If found out, back they go. Lying on an app is grounds for the boot. Two, they may, or the govt can force the sponsor to pay, so really your problem is with the lack of govt action, not the immigrant nor refugee nor sponsor. Third, they sponsor has to be able to pay for it to be allowed, they are vetted that way. Fourth, they try and prove it, ergo then only the really good ones get away with it. Sounds to me like small potatoes and not worth the effort to spend a $100 trying to save 2 bucks. Quote
overthere Posted February 11, 2014 Report Posted February 11, 2014 The Asia Pacific Foundation reported in October 2009 that an estimated 2.8-million Canadians were living abroad. The absurdity of this “citizenship for convenience” was illustrated when the Canadian taxpayer was obliged during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict to pay for the evacuation of 15,000 Lebanese Canadians. After the fighting ended, more than 7,000 returned to Lebanon. Above is another reason, 2.8 million Canadians live abroad, now granted alot of them are craving out a living overseas....but most are Canadians of convinence they enjoy having dual citizenship, but they don't want to live in Canada, they don't want to pay our taxes,or enjoy our butiful climate, and yet they can still can vote, effect our policies and lifes....they can be rescued on our dime all they got to do is call...The example above is but one, not sure if your familar with Lebanon, but it's still a war zone if compared to anything in Canada and those with dual citizenship returned instead of staying in Canada...So someone has got to ask why ? why would they apply to be a Canadian citizens if they don't want to live here....And why do we allow it ? They aren't "Lebanese-Canadians' under our laws, they are simply Canadian citizens who have EXACTLY the same rights and responsibilities as do natural born Canadians. You can ask what you want, but the reality is that is the law we chose and you, I and everybody else exist under the same rules. Why would they apply for citizenship? Obviously because it confers rights and privileges that benefit the holder. I don't see why that is confusing. I can't think of anybody who doesn't take what our system has to offer, and it is not much in real terms unless you are a LEGAL RESIDENT of Canada. being a resident is far more beneficial than being a citizen in terms of what is available. If you don';t like it, support change. But to criticize anybody for simply obeying our laws- as a good citizen would do- is ridiculous. Personally, I think a lot of the endless sniping about the people rescued from Lebanon relates to their brown skin. London, New York, Beijing, Hong Kong and many other places are full of Canadian expats who choose to live elsewhere. My brother is one of them,. So what? He does not pay taxes to Canada, but on the other hand he doesn't get anything much either. he doesn't get OAS, cannot get any form of Canadian health care, and pays fat fees for the one link he has- renewing his passport. If he goes to see a doctor or hospital while visiting, he pays cash for service. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
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.