Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Get on Canada's team – and revoke terrorists' citizenship


Ryan Strome

Recommended Posts

Bill C-6, which proposes changes to the Citizenship Act does a number of troubling things:

- removes the right to revoke citizenships from dual nationals convicted terrorists;

- ends the obligation for new citizens 14-18 and 55-65 to know either English or French or even pass a citizenship test;

- reduces the number of days someone must spend in Canada before they are eligible for citizenship;

- eliminates the obligation that a new citizen will have to “intend” to reside in Canada.

 

http://m.torontosun.com/2017/04/12/get-on-canadas-team--and-revoke-terrorists-citizenship?token=f5dbd859468c6754a22ae6e2e5c5de9e

https://www.google.ca/amp/news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/immigration-minister-defends-legislation-to-prevents-convicted-dual-nationals-from-losing-citizenship/amp

 

Immigration minister defends legislation that prevents convicted dual nationals from losing citizenship

This government is such a disaster.

Pm hair gel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, the first one is an opinion piece that does a terrible job of reporting the actual facts, and even skips over things that might make the bill palatable like the amendment noted after the 300,000 people in 10 years stat. Is the second one any better that I should send time reading it since you failed to quote any of it?

 

Better yet, why would such a bill ever get close to passing if it's as bad as the first article suggests?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most egregious and ironic things about this are

 

The conservatives tabled this bill, the Libs railed against it HARD, now the Libs refuse to repeal it or stop it and the Cons are complaining it's too draconian

 

And

 

The LIbs keep bringing in refugees/immigrants yet doing things like this without ever considering by and large the people they're bringing in tend to vote conservative

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well if we simplify it down to something it is not

then, yes, the thread is a valid complaint

but that is not really what the bill is about

 

the op is encouraging us to just all be trump like and give this an elementary reading

and rail against it

 

as trump did with nato . and now is praising nato once he figured it out

as trump did with obama care.. and now realizes that medicare is a damn complex issue

as trump did with the muslim ban.. and now finds the courts will uphold the constitution

 

the bill is much more nuanced then can be condensed into a couple of lines or concepts

so i will not elaborate

but just don't approach it like a 5 year old

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How I want to see it should work.

 

- People get priority if they have skills/education/trades. 

- If you are a doctor/technician/ect. how much training would be needed to get you to Canadian standards? 

- You reside in the country for more than 46 weeks in a calendar year. You are required to provide your passport for examination as proof of entry/exit

   Failure to prove means your temporary citizenship is revoked, and you can't re-apply for 10 years.

- You can pass Grade 10 in English or French fluency. And pass a citizenship test. 

- You get a 3 year temporary citizenship first, if you are convicted of a summary conviction or worse your citizenship is revoked and you can't re-apply for 10 years. 

 

Factors that should not affect citizenship:

- Money.

 

Issues such as refugees, etc. are considered based on political/social situation you are fleeing, with priority to war victims/disasters/genocide. 

 

Adding skilled immigrants, who want to be in Canada, contribute to the country is what the priority should be. 

This allows citizens to visit friends and family up to 6 weeks a year. But if you want to be a Canadian, then live, work, and reside in Canada.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

How I want to see it should work.

 

- People get priority if they have skills/education/trades. 

- If you are a doctor/technician/ect. how much training would be needed to get you to Canadian standards? 

- You reside in the country for more than 46 weeks in a calendar year. You are required to provide your passport for examination as proof of entry/exit

   Failure to prove means your temporary citizenship is revoked, and you can't re-apply for 10 years.

- You can pass Grade 10 in English or French fluency. And pass a citizenship test. 

- You get a 3 year temporary citizenship first, if you are convicted of a summary conviction or worse your citizenship is revoked and you can't re-apply for 10 years. 

 

Factors that should not affect citizenship:

- Money.

 

Issues such as refugees, etc. are considered based on political/social situation you are fleeing, with priority to war victims/disasters/genocide. 

 

Adding skilled immigrants, who want to be in Canada, contribute to the country is what the priority should be. 

This allows citizens to visit friends and family up to 6 weeks a year. But if you want to be a Canadian, then live, work, and reside in Canada.

 

 

 

 

 

100% agreed (well after review maybe not 100%, as there could be some discussion on the summary conviction and re-application part).

But yes, priority should always be for the people who are both willing and able to make our country a better place.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for C-6, it is basically just the other end of the spectrum to C-24.  While Bill C-24 tried to do too much to remove the rights of new citizens and dual citizens, Bill C-6 appears to do too much to the opposite way.  There should be a finer balance between the two.

Once somebody is a Canadian citizen they should be protected just as any natural born citizen is.  But at the same time, they should also be subject to demonstrate that they are committed to both residing and contributing to our country in order to receive their citizenship and the protections that come with it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Warhippy said:

The most egregious and ironic things about this are

 

The conservatives tabled this bill, the Libs railed against it HARD, now the Libs refuse to repeal it or stop it and the Cons are complaining it's too draconian

 

And

 

The LIbs keep bringing in refugees/immigrants yet doing things like this without ever considering by and large the people they're bringing in tend to vote conservative

Wrong.

 

Bill C-6was introduced by the Liberals to fulfil a campaign promise to repeal what the party said were “unfair elements” of its predecessor’s rules, including allowing citizenship revocation for dual citizens convicted of serious crimes such as terrorism, arguing it created two classes of citizens.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, coastal.view said:

well if we simplify it down to something it is not

then, yes, the thread is a valid complaint

but that is not really what the bill is about

 

the op is encouraging us to just all be trump like and give this an elementary reading

and rail against it

 

as trump did with nato . and now is praising nato once he figured it out

as trump did with obama care.. and now realizes that medicare is a damn complex issue

as trump did with the muslim ban.. and now finds the courts will uphold the constitution

 

the bill is much more nuanced then can be condensed into a couple of lines or concepts

so i will not elaborate

but just don't approach it like a 5 year old

I think you're looking for the Trump thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, elvis15 said:

Huh, the first one is an opinion piece that does a terrible job of reporting the actual facts, and even skips over things that might make the bill palatable like the amendment noted after the 300,000 people in 10 years stat. Is the second one any better that I should send time reading it since you failed to quote any of it?

 

Better yet, why would such a bill ever get close to passing if it's as bad as the first article suggests?

Do you prefer this link.

 

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,

(a) remove the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security;

(b) remove the requirement that an applicant intend, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada;

(c) reduce the number of days during which a person must have been physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship and provide that, in the calculation of the length of physical presence, the number of days during which the person was physically present in Canada before becoming a permanent resident may be taken into account;

(d) limit the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and of one of its official languages to applicants between the ages of 18 and 54; and

(e) authorize the Minister to seize any document that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe was fraudulently or improperly obtained or used or could be fraudulently or improperly used.

It also makes consequential amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

 

https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-6/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

How I want to see it should work.

 

- People get priority if they have skills/education/trades. 

- If you are a doctor/technician/ect. how much training would be needed to get you to Canadian standards? 

- You reside in the country for more than 46 weeks in a calendar year. You are required to provide your passport for examination as proof of entry/exit

   Failure to prove means your temporary citizenship is revoked, and you can't re-apply for 10 years.

- You can pass Grade 10 in English or French fluency. And pass a citizenship test. 

- You get a 3 year temporary citizenship first, if you are convicted of a summary conviction or worse your citizenship is revoked and you can't re-apply for 10 years. 

 

Factors that should not affect citizenship:

- Money.

 

Issues such as refugees, etc. are considered based on political/social situation you are fleeing, with priority to war victims/disasters/genocide. 

 

Adding skilled immigrants, who want to be in Canada, contribute to the country is what the priority should be. 

This allows citizens to visit friends and family up to 6 weeks a year. But if you want to be a Canadian, then live, work, and reside in Canada.

 

 

 

 

 

Like Jager I pretty much agree with all this except the reapplying part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, coastal.view said:

well if we simplify it down to something it is not

then, yes, the thread is a valid complaint

but that is not really what the bill is about

 

the op is encouraging us to just all be trump like and give this an elementary reading

and rail against it

 

as trump did with nato . and now is praising nato once he figured it out

as trump did with obama care.. and now realizes that medicare is a damn complex issue

as trump did with the muslim ban.. and now finds the courts will uphold the constitution

 

the bill is much more nuanced then can be condensed into a couple of lines or concepts

so i will not elaborate

but just don't approach it like a 5 year old

 

1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said:

Do you prefer this link.

 

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,

(a) remove the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security;

(b) remove the requirement that an applicant intend, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada;

(c) reduce the number of days during which a person must have been physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship and provide that, in the calculation of the length of physical presence, the number of days during which the person was physically present in Canada before becoming a permanent resident may be taken into account;

(d) limit the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and of one of its official languages to applicants between the ages of 18 and 54; and

(e) authorize the Minister to seize any document that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe was fraudulently or improperly obtained or used or could be fraudulently or improperly used.

It also makes consequential amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

 

https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-6/

I offered this link to Elvis you can read it as well. But you seem more interested in American politics.

 

Feel free to elaborate more..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

How I want to see it should work.

 

- People get priority if they have skills/education/trades. 

- If you are a doctor/technician/ect. how much training would be needed to get you to Canadian standards? 

- You reside in the country for more than 46 weeks in a calendar year. You are required to provide your passport for examination as proof of entry/exit

   Failure to prove means your temporary citizenship is revoked, and you can't re-apply for 10 years.

- You can pass Grade 10 in English or French fluency. And pass a citizenship test. 

- You get a 3 year temporary citizenship first, if you are convicted of a summary conviction or worse your citizenship is revoked and you can't re-apply for 10 years. 

 

Factors that should not affect citizenship:

- Money.

 

Issues such as refugees, etc. are considered based on political/social situation you are fleeing, with priority to war victims/disasters/genocide. 

 

Adding skilled immigrants, who want to be in Canada, contribute to the country is what the priority should be. 

This allows citizens to visit friends and family up to 6 weeks a year. But if you want to be a Canadian, then live, work, and reside in Canada.

 

 

 

 

 

Ye know, it was grade 12 for the rest of us.  Why lower the bar?

 

i don't see how lowering education standards, benchmarks, requirements is good for anyone or any country in the long term.  Education is the path to success.

 

the above is my best effort this morning to state things politely.

 

we all can agree there are far too many uneducated people.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that graphic managed to combine scary looking fonts and rainbows, congratulations. 

 

Yah, so as usual the CPC fear wagon is out in full force. You're trying to combine some sensible upgrades to immigration policy that apply to anyone in the world wanting to come here with pure fear tactics, by making it all "Muslimish" and scary. Its shameful already, please knock it off. 

 

What it ends is Harpers desire to create two classes of Canadians. As far as revoking goes, thats still there for people that put in fraudulent citizenship claims. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

How I want to see it should work.

 

- People get priority if they have skills/education/trades. 

- If you are a doctor/technician/ect. how much training would be needed to get you to Canadian standards? 

- You reside in the country for more than 46 weeks in a calendar year. You are required to provide your passport for examination as proof of entry/exit

   Failure to prove means your temporary citizenship is revoked, and you can't re-apply for 10 years.

- You can pass Grade 10 in English or French fluency. And pass a citizenship test. 

- You get a 3 year temporary citizenship first, if you are convicted of a summary conviction or worse your citizenship is revoked and you can't re-apply for 10 years. 

 

Factors that should not affect citizenship:

- Money.

 

Issues such as refugees, etc. are considered based on political/social situation you are fleeing, with priority to war victims/disasters/genocide. 

 

Adding skilled immigrants, who want to be in Canada, contribute to the country is what the priority should be. 

This allows citizens to visit friends and family up to 6 weeks a year. But if you want to be a Canadian, then live, work, and reside in Canada.

 

 

 

 

 

A lot of this is already in place including the skills part, and there is a lot of work being done on making the process for recognizing foreign credentials easier.

 

We already have something similar to what you're proposing on a certain amount of time being in the country, its called permanent resident status. You have to be here for 2/5 years to keep it while waiting to become a full citizen and/or just maintaining the permanent resident status (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomers/about-pr.asp).

 

Should it be more time than 2/5 years, yah maybe, thats definitely something worth considering for sure. Seems a little short. 

 

As far as the 'living in Canada' part goes though, once you are a full citizen I don't believe that we should create two classes of citizenship. You aren't forced to live here for a certain amount of time. If you e.g., become an expat you never lose your citizenship unless you give it up. Also, would you expect this to apply to their kids born here? What happens if a person gets stuck outside of the country past the 10 weeks you're proposing? It gets murky pretty fast. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

How I want to see it should work.

 

- People get priority if they have skills/education/trades. 

- If you are a doctor/technician/ect. how much training would be needed to get you to Canadian standards? 

- You reside in the country for more than 46 weeks in a calendar year. You are required to provide your passport for examination as proof of entry/exit

   Failure to prove means your temporary citizenship is revoked, and you can't re-apply for 10 years.

- You can pass Grade 10 in English or French fluency. And pass a citizenship test. 

- You get a 3 year temporary citizenship first, if you are convicted of a summary conviction or worse your citizenship is revoked and you can't re-apply for 10 years. 

 

Factors that should not affect citizenship:

- Money.

 

Issues such as refugees, etc. are considered based on political/social situation you are fleeing, with priority to war victims/disasters/genocide. 

 

Adding skilled immigrants, who want to be in Canada, contribute to the country is what the priority should be. 

This allows citizens to visit friends and family up to 6 weeks a year. But if you want to be a Canadian, then live, work, and reside in Canada.

 

 

 

 

 

would agree with most of this other than bold - many come here without language skills and learn - perhaps adjust it to 'must take english language courses if not able to pass that / certain level and within 1-2 years show a level of proficiency

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bo053 said:

...

What, you had trouble converting Trudeau's face to black and white to photoshop onto a picture of Hitler?

 

4 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Do you prefer this link.

 

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,

(a) remove the grounds for the revocation of Canadian citizenship that relate to national security;

(b) remove the requirement that an applicant intend, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada;

(c) reduce the number of days during which a person must have been physically present in Canada before applying for citizenship and provide that, in the calculation of the length of physical presence, the number of days during which the person was physically present in Canada before becoming a permanent resident may be taken into account;

(d) limit the requirement to demonstrate knowledge of Canada and of one of its official languages to applicants between the ages of 18 and 54; and

(e) authorize the Minister to seize any document that he or she has reasonable grounds to believe was fraudulently or improperly obtained or used or could be fraudulently or improperly used.

It also makes consequential amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

 

https://openparliament.ca/bills/42-1/C-6/

I'd prefer you provide good links and information in your OP. The link has all the detail (even if you're still loosely summarizing) so why not use that over some opinion piece?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...