canadasucks said:
First we need to understand why they changed place of birth? We know they came to Canada during 90s. So what happened in Afghanistan during 90s? Afghan Civil War led to the Taliban control. It's similar to what's happening right now in Syria. So the refugee claims from Afghanistan (as Syria right now) were much easier and had much higher chance to succeed. While Iran was much peaceful during the same period, the only way to claim refugee from Iran had to be political reason and this was very hard to prove and much difficult to succeed. If they didn't lie about their country of origin, I doubt they would have been granted refugee status. So this misrepresentation was really intentional to secure refugee status, not as innocent as she said.
This is exactly same as right now a lot of illegal economic migrants from other safe countries are buying fake Syrian passports to pretend to be Syrian refugees to get into Europe. Since her mother lied about place of birth on their original IDs used to claim refugee status, such documents could also be considered fraudulent and can be confiscated under C-6.
So it's really a sufficient ground to revoke her citizenship without any hearing under C-24. Even with hearing, it's still difficult to prove her innocent. So a politician is politician is politician. They always have special privilege than normal people, they can change laws as they like to protect themselves, while real innocent people are suffering.
We do know a lot, enough. We know that her nationality was Afghan despite her place of birth. There is no doubt about her identity. We know that her place of birth had no relevance to the grounds for being granted refugee status (it was based on the situation she was in at the time, many years after her birth, and the fact there was no other country she had a right to status in, both of which there is no doubt regarding). We know she was a minor and did not personally make any misrepresentation. We know that she was personally granted refugee status so her status was not dependent on that of another person. Even if it was, if for example she obtained status in Canada as a dependent accompanying her mother, there is no evidence her mother's refugee status was obtained by fraud.
There was a discrepancy in what was reported as her place of birth. That discrepancy had no bearing on her obtaining refugee status. Moreover, that discrepancy was not a misrepresentation made by her. There was no fraud.
All the Monsef blather is a
red herring.
Moreover, even if there was an arguable ground for revoking Monsef's citizenship on the grounds of fraud,
that still would have no bearing on what is proposed in Bill C-6 or on how Bill C-6 has progressed or failed to progress through the legislative process.
I later noticed two discrepancies in my original PR application, and despite my best efforts I also made a mistake in my citizenship application resulting in a discrepancy. I have no fear, none whatsoever, that there is any likelihood that IRCC could or would pursue revocation of my citizenship. Not every discrepancy is a misrepresentation. Not every misrepresentation is a material misrepresentation.
I fully agree that the procedures implemented by Bill C-24 are prone to abuse and provide insufficient protection for innocent naturalized citizens. But the Monsef situation is no more relevant to a discussion about this than the many many thousands of naturalized citizens for whom there is some incidental discrepancy in their immigration history. And there are undoubtedly many many thousands. Incidental mistakes are more common, far more common, than perfect applications.
