Congratulations! You The Law Biding Citizen Might Now Be A Second Class Citizen

[Hugor Hill]

So people not originally from this country should be able to break the law and be a financial burden. Maybe canada can build jails and every other country can send their criminals here free of charge. Our taxpayers would be more than happy. Seriously though law abiding citizens of any classification have nothing to worry about.

So it's better if citizens who are born here break the law and be a financial burden? I as a tax payer has equal problems with all citizens who break the law.

[Heretic]

This works in theory, but time and time again in history people have constantly been arrested even if they have broken no law. Either that or they have broken the law, but the law was unjust in the first place.

We have checks and balances on the authorities, not to protect criminals, but to protect innocents.

Plus that's not the problem with this law. The problem is two people could commit the same crime, but one will get a harsher punishment simply because he/she is a citizen of another country, even if he/she was born in Canada and had no ties to any other nation.

Or they broke the law, but the law didn't follow the rules or messed up something, and the law breaker goes free.

[Standing_Tall#37]

So it's better if citizens who are born here break the law and be a financial burden? I as a tax payer has equal problems with all citizens who break the law.

No, but where would you deport someone that's only been from here? Do you trace back 10 generations to deport them? What about First Nations? If you immigrate to a country, then get convicted of trying to or succeeding in commuting terrorism against that place that took you in and gave you citizenship, why should you not get deported?

And if you have a problem with status qou as a taxpayer, why not demand harsher punishment as a stronger deterrent for all citizens?

[Heretic]

Not to mention people break the law a lot more than they realize. Now, most of these are minor infractions that wouldn't be grounds for any revoking of citizenship, but this new bill doesn't leave a lot of options for someone to fight for their citizenship if it is being threatened to be taken away.

Drive over the speed limit? You're breaking the law.

Connect to unsecured wifi? You could be breaking the law.

Download music or movies or tv shows or stream them on a non-licensed site? Breaking the law.

Sing the happy birthday song in a large group? Breaking copyright law

Text or make a phone call while driving? broke da law

Give a beer to your underage kid at a family party? You just broke THE LAWRRR

Again, I'm not saying these are laws that are going to impact C24, it's just amusing to me to see the folks on their high horse with stupid blanket statements of "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" when they have probably broken the law many times without even realizing.

What about those on their "high horse" making blanket statements about 2nd class citizens and the government is going to deport them for what ever reason they can find?

From the Canadian Bar Association:

The grounds on which citizenship may be revoked are expanded to

include a number of criminal offences as defined in the Criminal Code, the

National Defence Act,5 and the Security of Information Act,6 committed in

or outside of Canada and for which a life sentence (or a five-year sentence

in some instances), has been imposed. They now will also include

engaging in armed conflict with Canada.

The grounds are broad and may not be objectively serious in context. For

example, a five-year sentence for a terrorism offence may not a heavy

penalty, as most actual terrorist related offences result in lengthy

sentences. Similarly, a minor offence in another country may be

characterized as terrorist and given a five-year sentence when it might be

a relatively benign act of opposition to government repression.

The revocation process will be a paper one, where the Minister gives

notice of the intent to revoke, the person responds and a decision is made

by the Minister. The Minister may hold a hearing in some instances. In

limited circumstances (misrepresentation of association with a

prescribed organization and engaging in armed conflict against Canada),

there will continue to be a hearing before a Federal Court judge.

There is no longer any recourse to the Governor in Council, who may take

into account equitable considerations.

Edit: Forgot the source: http://www.cba.org/cba/submissions/pdf/14-22-eng.pdf

[Hugor Hill]

No, but where would you deport someone that's only been from here? Do you trace back 10 generations to deport them? What about First Nations? If you immigrate to a country, then get convicted of trying to or succeeding in commuting terrorism against that place that took you in and gave you citizenship, why should you not get deported?

And if you have a problem with status qou as a taxpayer, why not demand harsher punishment as a stronger deterrent for all citizens?

That should be the proper direction, not implementing a 2 tier citizenship system.

[awalk]

What about those on their "high horse" making blanket statements about 2nd class citizens and the government is going to deport them for what ever reason they can find?

From the Canadian Bar Association:

The grounds on which citizenship may be revoked are expanded to

include a number of criminal offences as defined in the Criminal Code, the

National Defence Act,5 and the Security of Information Act,6 committed in

or outside of Canada and for which a life sentence (or a five-year sentence

in some instances), has been imposed. They now will also include

engaging in armed conflict with Canada.

The grounds are broad and may not be objectively serious in context. For

example, a five-year sentence for a terrorism offence may not a heavy

penalty, as most actual terrorist related offences result in lengthy

sentences. Similarly, a minor offence in another country may be

characterized as terrorist and given a five-year sentence when it might be

a relatively benign act of opposition to government repression.

The revocation process will be a paper one, where the Minister gives

notice of the intent to revoke, the person responds and a decision is made

by the Minister. The Minister may hold a hearing in some instances. In

limited circumstances (misrepresentation of association with a

prescribed organization and engaging in armed conflict against Canada),

there will continue to be a hearing before a Federal Court judge.

There is no longer any recourse to the Governor in Council, who may take

into account equitable considerations.

I would call that an extreme interpretation of the new bill. But I think concerns that if the gvmt wanted someone out bad enough they could do so with little opportunity for the individual to fight their case are valid. It's the vagueness that concerns me the most.

My point about people being on their high horse was simply because it's an argument I see all the time and I don't find it to be an effective one.

[Heretic]

I would call that an extreme interpretation of the new bill. But I think concerns that if the gvmt wanted someone out bad enough they could do so with little opportunity for the individual to fight their case are valid. It's the vagueness that concerns me the most.

My point about people being on their high horse was simply because it's an argument I see all the time and I don't find it to be an effective one.

Seems fairly black and white to me:

Your citizenship can be revoked or denied it you are:

• A dual citizen, or a PR in Canada; AND,
• A member of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada; AND/OR,
• Convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received.

Getting a speeding ticket or jay walking or breaking many other laws won't get your citizenship revoked.

FYI: I just read somewhere that even if you were born here, but are eligible for citizenship in the country where either one or both of your parents are from, puts you in that group - which is myself and my children as England has a grandfather rule whereby your children and grandchildren can get citizenship quite easily based on your parent(s)/grand parent(s).

[IamHomer]

So it's better if citizens who are born here break the law and be a financial burden? I as a tax payer has equal problems with all citizens who break the law.

Well where else are we gonna send them? LOL I highly doubt any country is gonna be generous and house our criminals for us?

[theminister]

Seems fairly black and white to me:

Your citizenship can be revoked or denied it you are:

• A dual citizen, or a PR in Canada; AND,
• A member of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada; AND/OR,
• Convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received.

Getting a speeding ticket or jay walking or breaking many other laws won't get your citizenship revoked.

FYI: I just read somewhere that even if you were born here, but are eligible for citizenship in the country where either one or both of your parents are from, puts you in that group - which is myself and my children as England has a grandfather rule whereby your children and grandchildren can get citizenship quite easily based on your parent(s)/grand parent(s).

This is exactly correct... so it is, of course, by nature a two tier system.

Myself, being born in Canada, raised in Canada, hold a second citizenship with another country, as do thousands upon thousands of similar Canadians.

Now the Canadian government can deem it appropriate to revoke the passports of people like me and deport me to a country that I have never lived in.

[Tre Mac]

So people not originally from this country should be able to break the law and be a financial burden. Maybe canada can build jails and every other country can send their criminals here free of charge. Our taxpayers would be more than happy. Seriously though law abiding citizens of any classification have nothing to worry about.

Hey why not? Australia turned out ok.

[theminister]

And it does not matter how one believes the law will be applied. It only matters how it is written... which states clearly that ANY person carrying dual citizenship, naturalized or not, is considered now to be of a second legal status as those who do not.

Last week we were equal and now we are not.

The question will then become whether dual citizens that are public servants now feel less inclined to be whistleblowers against crimes by our government for fear of deportation and the revocation of their citizenship on the threat of domestic spying charges, and whether domestic terrorism will one day be extended to those passively utilizing acts of civil disobedience in contrast with what that individual considers an unjust law.

[taxi]

I'm not sure this is the way to go about it, but Canada needs to overhaul its citizenship process. Canadian citizens need to give back to Canada. Currently, there are many "dual citizens" who have spent only very small portions of their lives living in Canada. They do not pay taxes in Canada, fight in foreign armies, etc... yet also come back to Canada for health care and expect the Canadian army to put their lives at risk and rescue them when things go sour in their resident countries.

There should be a way to strip certain people of citizenship.

[Heretic]

And it does not matter how one believes the law will be applied. It only matters how it is written... which states clearly that ANY person carrying dual citizenship, naturalized or not, is considered now to be of a second legal status as those who do not.

Last week we were equal and now we are not.

The question will then become whether dual citizens that are public servants now feel less inclined to be whistleblowers against crimes by our government for fear of deportation and the revocation of their citizenship on the threat of domestic spying charges, and whether domestic terrorism will one day be extended to those passively utilizing acts of civil disobedience in contrast with what that individual considers an unjust law.

What do you mean equal?

We're still "equal" - all this does is allow the government to deport some people if they are:

• A member of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada; AND/OR,
• Convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received.

Before, they couldn't.

[awalk]

Seems fairly black and white to me:

Your citizenship can be revoked or denied it you are:

• A dual citizen, or a PR in Canada; AND,
• A member of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada; AND/OR,
• Convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received.

Getting a speeding ticket or jay walking or breaking many other laws won't get your citizenship revoked.

FYI: I just read somewhere that even if you were born here, but are eligible for citizenship in the country where either one or both of your parents are from, puts you in that group - which is myself and my children as England has a grandfather rule whereby your children and grandchildren can get citizenship quite easily based on your parent(s)/grand parent(s).

That's where someone could get absolutely nailed and screwed by the system. But I hate talking in hypotheticals so Im going to stop. I don't particularly like the language of the bill, I don't like that it has created a two tier system.

[Hugor Hill]

What do you mean equal?

We're still "equal" - all this does is allow the government to deport some people if they are:

• A member of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada; AND/OR,
• Convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received.

Before, they couldn't.

[theminister]

What do you mean equal?

We're still "equal" - all this does is allow the government to deport some people if they are:

• A member of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada; AND/OR,
• Convicted of terrorism, high treason, treason, or spying offences, depending on the sentence received.

Before, they couldn't.

Not equal as there are now different laws applying to both parties.... are you being intentionally obstinate to not see that?

Not equal under the law as there are two different penalties.

See my above post regarding how the law could be applied or not.

No, you missed it, you are wrong in saying nothing will happen to you if you were born here an are involved with terrorism.

Edit: Look at it this way - I was born here - they can't deport me to anywhere but here. Someone from another country, can be deported back there and use that country's tax payers dollars to keep them in prison. Note I said "can" - means it may or may not happen, but this gives the government the right to do so.

Completely wrong if you hold a second citizenship.

[Hugor Hill]

Not equal as there are now different laws applying to both parties.... are you being intentionally obstinate to not see that?

Not equal under the law as there are two different penalties.

See my above post regarding how the law could be applied or not.

He actually doesn't get the irony of the situation: the very words he is typing, his very own argument, proves his argument wrong.

His argument proves his argument wrong! LOL!!!

[Heretic]

Not equal as there are now different laws applying to both parties.... are you being intentionally obstinate to not see that?

Not equal under the law as there are two different penalties.

See my above post regarding how the law could be applied or not.

Completely wrong if you hold a second citizenship.

How do I explain this....the only thing that has changed is, if your are convicted of high treason, etc, and are not a 3rd generation Canadian, the government can have you deported. Doesn't say "they must" deport you - means they can.

Not "completely" wrong - for if you're a 3rd generation Canadian with single citizenship = NO DEPORTATION.

They can only deport if you're convicted. For someone who has no place to deport to, they will just be in prison here in Canada.

As far as being obstinate or not - does it matter? or are you trying to place me in a "different" class?

[Heretic]

He actually doesn't get the irony of the situation: the very words he is typing, his very own argument, proves his argument wrong.

His argument proves his argument wrong! LOL!!!

Yes, the irony is overwhelming - look in the mirror.

[Hugor Hill]

How do I explain this....the only thing that has changed is, if your are convicted of high treason, etc, and are not a 3rd generation Canadian, the government can have you deported. Doesn't say "they must" deport you - means they can.

Not "completely" wrong - for if you're a 3rd generation Canadian with single citizenship = NO DEPORTATION.

They can only deport if you're convicted. For someone who has no place to deport to, they will just be in prison here in Canada.

As far as being obstinate or not - does it matter? or are you trying to place me in a "different" class?

You still don't get it.

Yes, the irony is overwhelming - look in the mirror.

And you are not funny.