Senators are not raising questions relating to extension of period to four years ? Debate is not very strong from opposition
Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:
- Thread starter polarbear
- Start date
torontosm said:
This proves the original point, by totally missing it. 'Citizenship' is a shared bond; by making distinctions between citizens, this bill weakens that bond, and when it does this it affects EVERY Canadian, not only those who were born abroad. Many people recognize this -- the ones who don't are those, like torontosm, who dislike immigrants, see them as a net drain on Canada, and are willing to trade the integrity of their own citizenship for a symbolic attack on Canadians from foreign countries. "Intent" is there to comfort Canadians who see immigrants as a second class, brought here to work and not to fulfill themselves as Canadians in the world.
As for the clause that removes the protection of law from citizenship revocations, I have no idea if that will be found to be acceptable or not; I do know that it's disgusting. People who don't see the problem with a Minister being in charge of removing a citizen's status are blinded by hate.
Why is it symbolic? Read the excellent speech given (link above) by the member of Parliament who points out that there are no Canadians of convenience, only Canadians. This bill can't change that, because all Canadians have the same Charter rights. Does anyone think that this Supreme Court, which has no tolerance for Harper's attacks on the spirit of Canadian laws, is going to accept this? Not even Harper, I'm sure, which raises the question of why it's there. In my opinion, the answer to that lies in the next election.
Badshah bhai said:
No one opposes this very much -- it's not what is wrong with this bill. It inconveniences some of us, but there's nothing fundamentally unfair about Canada changing the terms on which people become citizens. It's the process for revocation and the 'intent' clause that damage Canadian citizenship, both for birth and naturalized Canadians.
The other eligibility provision, the loss of pre-PR time, I do think is wrong, but it's not unfair. I just don't think it makes sense for the government not to recognize it, since there are so many ways that an immigrant PR can interact with 'Canada' less deeply than a student or a TFW.
Anyway, neither opposition party wants to be seen supporting a weak version of citizenship -- never let yourself think that this bill does not have broad support in the population, it's the details that bother specialists, not the basic idea.
taleodor said:
??? you seem to be confused. If you give up your other citizenship after you become Canadian, how does that make someone stateless? All it does is ensure that you can never be stripped of your Canadian citizenship, thereby eliminating the "two tier" system you are so afraid of.
P.S. please think before you post
on-hold said:
I fail to follow your logic. How does this bill do anything to adversely impact the shared bond between Canadians? According to the Bill (and as debated and agreed amongst the MP's), the issue about stripping someone of their Canadian citizenship is applicable to ALL dual-citizen Canadians, not just those born abroad. As one of the MP's said:
"It would only affect dual citizens who actually are citizens of Canada but are also citizens of another country in the world. If people in that class of individuals commit treason against this country, they cannot expect to keep Canadian citizenship. I think that is fair and understandable, and I think most Canadians would agree with that approach."
Another MP said:
"Mr. Speaker, based on the legislation, if it passes as it is, in certain circumstances, those who are dual citizens will in fact be deported, because they will be stripped of their citizenship."
finally, another one said:
"Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that if people are born in Canada and have dual citizenship, their citizenship could potentially be taken away. I could not say that as an absolute fact. All I know is, if someone is a dual citizen what has been implied is that the government could, under a certain situation, be able to take that citizenship away. What is a fact is a two-tier citizenship is being created."
So, there is no difference as to whether someone was born here or abroad. The difference is whether you will be rendered stateless by having your citizenship stripped or not.
on-hold said:
Again, the "intent" clause DOES NOT affect citizens. As stated by MP Ted Falk:
"It is important to note that the new rules would not restrict the mobility rights of new citizens. They would be able to leave and return to the country just like other citizens. Rather, the purpose of the provision is to reinforce an expectation that citizenship is for those who intend to continue to reside in Canada. Once newcomers become citizens, they enjoy all the rights of citizenship common to all Canadians."
So, how exactly does it damage citizenship? And, moreover, if a PR isn't willing to at least state that they intend to reside in Canada, why do they deserve citizenship?
torontosm said:
OMG, such person can still be stripped from Canadian citizenship (unless born in Canada). Then they become stateless. Here is a use case for you: http://rabble.ca/news/2014/05/i-was-born-canada-my-canadian-citizenship-has-been-stripped-away
Maybe enough of your bs on this forum?
taleodor said:
No, if you give up your alternate citizenship, then you are no longer a dual citizen. As a result you can not be stripped as you will be rendered stateless.
The article you linked was entirely irrelevant as it has nothing to do with Bill C-24. If you actually read the transcript of the debate in Parliament instead of getting your news from editorials on websites like Rabble, you will see that this issue has nothing to do with whether you were born in Canada or not, but rather whether you are a dual citizen or not.
Maybe enough of your ignorant, ill-informed nonsense on this forum?
torontosm said:
First of all, the ministers (or someone else) says this; not the bill. The bill says that PRs will take an oath affirming their intent to continue to reside in Canada -- an oath is a legal process, and all legal processes have requirements for validity. For example, people who take the Oath of Citizenship have been disqualified for not moving their lips, or not uttering the oath. What will the standard be for this Oath? Right now, we're told that there is no standard, it's a 'symbol'. What is it a symbol of?
Here's a scenario in which a PR's oath of intent could be called into question. They take the oath of intent to reside, become a citizen. Three months later they leave Canada to care for an aging mother who is ill. The mother dies, leaves them a bunch of money in their home country. They settle down to sort things out. Later, the government shows that the mother's illness predated the Oath of Intent -- did this PR REALLY intend to reside afterwards?
Even worse, might the new citizen feel that they can't go care for their mother, without risking their new citizenship? Some will. I believe that all Canadians should have the same freedom to move around the world, without feeling that their status is in danger -- just like young Canadians go study in the United States, without ever thinking 'I wonder if I could lose my citizenship if I settle down here?' Why should the naturalized citizen have this burden? Or the burden of planning to go take care of their relative, but keeping it a secret, because it could harm their citizenship application?
I like your term 'deserve' citizenship; it shows that you feel that there are some applicants who do not 'deserve' citizenship. Receiving citizenship is a statutory process, the CIC officer is not determining if the applicant 'deserves' citizenship, they are determining if they meet the statutory requirements. People who hate immigrants worry about 'undeserving' foreigners getting this status. People who recognize that immigrants are also people don't judge the qualified applicants who apply.
torontosm said:
In this case, you can and you will. The case I invoked is just a proof of concept that can happen. Here's the guy's official website, if you prefer http://www.justicefordeepan.org/
If bill C-24 is passed there will be much more cases of people being stateless. Again, no one will care about the Parliament debate once the bill is passed.
torontosm said:
You know in some cases you can't give up your other citizenship. There's simply no legal process for that. Especially for some North African countries.
And it's not about committing or not committing crimes, it's about the real possibility that some country could falsely convict you of one of those crimes. And this stupid law does NOT give you the possibility of contesting that !
Please see all the possibilities, you can't have this binary view where you think you can be safe by not commiting crimes, you know the World is more complicated thant that !!!!!!
