Useful comment. I'm Inuit btw.
Don't you mean you are Inuk? Inuit is plural. Just to confirm, you are born second-generation abroad Canadian? Are you registered with an Inuit organization?
I am certainly not oblivious to the suffering that was imposed on the Intuit due to Canada's colonization and territorial expansion. I worked with Inuit involved in the criminal justice system in Nunavut for a bit. As part of that work, I spoke to many Inuit accused and witnesses. I also had the chance to speak with an Inuk elder who works as an interpreter from whom I learned quite a bit about the history of colonization of Canada's newest territory as he had lived it. Regardless of their circumstances, I found that they are all warm, welcoming individuals, who sometimes just want someone to listen and maybe be offered some help with their struggles. Nobody seemed interested in any kind of right wing politics. The Nunavut Legislative Assembly is free of any political parties and very collaborative, and I did not observe any kind of ideology when I was sitting in on the proceedings as an observer.
I am not taking back what I said just because you happen to reveal after the fact that you are Inuit. It had nothing to do with you being Inuit but everything to do with you espousing an ideology that is foreign to the Inuit. Nothing I said was personal against you and I do think that all indigenous groups connected to Canadian territory should be able to have Canadian citizenship regardless of where they are born, which is still not always the case today.
I have citizenship already thank you very much.
I thought your citizenship proof application was on hold since the stay of the section 52 declaration was extended to August? If the politicians you talked to had their way, you'd probably never get your citizenship. If the Conservatives or PPC came to power tomorrow, they'd be passing some new bill that would see you being deported. A lot of people these days have this tendencies to just buy into some supposedly "common sense" idea that some right wing demagogue brought up, without properly thinking things through. Right wing is a very dangerous ideology and you better think twice what you wish for.
First Nations is a ridiculous and racist term in itself.
Indigenous groups themselves came up with it fairly recently to replace the outdated and far more obviously racist term "Indian" as used to refer to indigenous peoples when the term refers, etymologically, to people originating from India. Of course, it's much more sensible to refer to Algonquin, Cree, etc. when possible but it's just not possible to enumerate them all every time when you mean the people who were the original inhabitants of Canada and that's why First Nations is used as short hand. Of course, Inuit were also the among the original inhabitants of Canada and so I do somewhat question why they often seem to be mentioned separately and last as some sort of afterthought, as if they came later on like the Metis.
genocide. noun. geno·cide ˈje-nə-ˌsīd. : acts committed with intent to partially or wholly destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. also : the crime of committing such an act.
That's a copy-and-paste dictionary definition from who knows what dictionary. I am not saying it's per se wrong but it is incomplete. Let me enlighten you.
Let's start with the
Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, S.C. 2000, c. 24. That is a federal law in Canada. In subsection 4(3) of that Act it has a definition for genocide that is as follows:
genocide means an act or omission committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, an identifiable group of persons, as such, that, at the time and in the place of its commission, constitutes genocide according to customary international law or conventional international law or by virtue of its being criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations, whether or not it constitutes a contravention of the law in force at the time and in the place of its commission.
It's clear from this that genocide is an act or omission that is specified as genocide by international law. So let's go to the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and see what international law has to say about what acts or omissions constitute genocide:
The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the
Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
- A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
- A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
- Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
SOURCE:
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
So there we go. Genocide has a physical element. Permitting immigration is not a listed physical element and since the list is exhaustive, it can't constitute genocide. Even then, at present, immigration has valid purposes, such as improving the economy, family reunification, education and complying with Canada's international obligations, that have nothing to do with destroying any person, let alone a protected group. Canada is a multi-cultural society of many nationalities. Immigration cannot destroy it, only make it better.
I'm right. You're wrong. This is black and white.
You probably missed a few learning opportunities in life with that line.
Colloquially it is easier to refer to jus soli as birthright citizenship [...]
It might be more common to hear of the term being used this way in Canada, the US, Mexico and most South American countries, simply because it is the dominant form of citizenship acquisition at birth in the Americas. However, when you look in the citizenship and nationality laws of many European countries, you will find that they refer to citizenship by birth in the context of children receiving the citizenship of their parents at the time of birth.
Citizenship should be restricted to stop the separation of families and allow deportation of economic migrants breaking immigration law. It's not fair to deport parents if the child is a citizen. The concept of anchor babies encourages terrible situations.
There are no anchor babies, that's a complete myth; parents don't get to stay just because their minor children are Canadian. There is also no separation of citizen children from their foreign nationals parents. What happens if a parent or parents with children is detained for immigration reasons is that the children are housed with their parent in the immigration holding facility in a family friendly environment, and if the parent(s) is deported, the children, even if they are Canadian citizens, leave Canada with their parent(s) at the same time. The parent(s) may, of course, make other arrangements through relatives or children's services, but that is entirely up to the parent(s). Under no circumstances would there be a forced separation of families. In the rare instances when separation does occur, one typically sees a parent who is Canadian and another other who isn't and, for whatever reason, the Canadian parent can't sponsor the other parent and it's not feasible for the Canadian parent to move abroad - and then the child would have Canadian citizenship anyways because they have a Canadian parent.
Canada does not need to jump through as many hoops as the yanks in changing it. There's really no excuse.
I don't think it would be as easy as you think and certain constitutional principles, including section 15 of the Charter, may be interpreted as requiring Canada to give citizenship to individuals born here, with only the exception for individuals not subject to Canadian jurisdiction due their parents being accredited foreign representatives. There is a recent federal court ruling that unequivocally says that individuals born in Canada are of Canadian national origin. To restrict immigration in the manner you are proposing is elitist and very un-Canadian. While I do agree that the indigenous peoples should be consulted and be able to weigh in on Canadian immigration policies, there is no majority, let alone a significant minority, of them that wants to stop immigration or reduce it in any significant way.
