Lawsuit to stop BILL C24 : Member Crimesinister

[Bigudi]

For christ's sake,
Kübler-Ross model is about emotion for a dying people !!!

And it is absolute bulls%$.

 

[Bigudi]

Before giving my opinion about all this, I must say that if someone is feeling damaged by something, they should investigate if a law suit is doable. So let these people do what they think it's best for them. Why all the hate?

Now, about the new law, I think people are focusing on the wrong aspect of it. Here is my opinion:

- The 4/6 rule: Come on guys. This is fair. Four year to become a full citizen? That really sounds fair enough. Ii is an annoyance, yes, but it is fair.

- The Intend to Reside document: It looks to me that it is VERY fair to sign an intend to reside WHILE your citizenship request is still processing. Don't you guys think that looks obvious that you should remain in Canada during that period? I really think this is a very reasonable request. Unless, of course, this "Intend to Reside" can be applied after you become a citizen. In that case I am pretty sure this is unconstitutional.

- Revoke rule: Now... here is the real problem. How can a Minister:

1) Revoke a citizenship?
That makes absolutely no sense. Whatever crime a person commits, that there's nothing to do with his/hers citizenship. This person should be punished accordingly, and that's it. Once a citizen, forever a citizen. Granting the citizenship to someone is almost a bet for the country. It wins the bet way more often that it loses. But when it loses, it should do the damage control and take the loss.

2) Revoke a citizenship without granting the accused to defend himself in court?
I am pretty sure this is unconstitutional. This does not make any sense whatsoever. Everybody has to have the right of a fair trial. Court, judge, jury, everything. I have high hope that the next government will get rid, at least, of this part of the provision.

 

[ngag]

Before giving my opinion about all this, I must say that if someone is feeling damaged by something, they should investigate if a law suit is doable. So let these people do what they think it's best for them. Why all the hate?

Now, about the new law, I think people are focusing on the wrong aspect of it. Here is my opinion:

- The 4/6 rule: Come on guys. This is fair. Four year to become a full citizen? That really sounds fair enough. Ii is an annoyance, yes, but it is fair.

- The Intend to Reside document: It looks to me that it is VERY fair to sign an intend to reside WHILE your citizenship request is still processing. Don't you guys think that looks obvious that you should remain in Canada during that period? I really think this is a very reasonable request. Unless, of course, this "Intend to Reside" can be applied after you become a citizen. In that case I am pretty sure this is unconstitutional.

- Revoke rule: Now... here is the real problem. How can a Minister:

1) Revoke a citizenship?
That makes absolutely no sense. Whatever crime a person commits, that there's nothing to do with his/hers citizenship. This person should be punished accordingly, and that's it. Once a citizen, forever a citizen. Granting the citizenship to someone is almost a bet for the country. It wins the bet way more often that it loses. But when it loses, it should do the damage control and take the loss.

2) Revoke a citizenship without granting the accused to defend himself in court?
I am pretty sure this is unconstitutional. This does not make any sense whatsoever. Everybody has to have the right of a fair trial. Court, judge, jury, everything. I have high hope that the next government will get rid, at least, of this part of the provision.

I agree with what you except for the 4/6 rule. It would be very fair if I knew it ahead of planning for my life. I spent 6 years of my life in Canada, and spent tens of thousands of dollars of my savings on this country and still going on. My plans for business and finances were based on the given facts. I didn't have to go through speculations of what they have in mind for me in the future. It was impossible to change my plans midway. It would be fair to apply this rules for new PRs, who have the choice to take it or leave it.

 

[screech339]

Before giving my opinion about all this, I must say that if someone is feeling damaged by something, they should investigate if a law suit is doable. So let these people do what they think it's best for them. Why all the hate?

Now, about the new law, I think people are focusing on the wrong aspect of it. Here is my opinion:

- The 4/6 rule: Come on guys. This is fair. Four year to become a full citizen? That really sounds fair enough. Ii is an annoyance, yes, but it is fair.

- The Intend to Reside document: It looks to me that it is VERY fair to sign an intend to reside WHILE your citizenship request is still processing. Don't you guys think that looks obvious that you should remain in Canada during that period? I really think this is a very reasonable request. Unless, of course, this "Intend to Reside" can be applied after you become a citizen. In that case I am pretty sure this is unconstitutional.

- Revoke rule: Now... here is the real problem. How can a Minister:

1) Revoke a citizenship?
That makes absolutely no sense. Whatever crime a person commits, that there's nothing to do with his/hers citizenship. This person should be punished accordingly, and that's it. Once a citizen, forever a citizen. Granting the citizenship to someone is almost a bet for the country. It wins the bet way more often that it loses. But when it loses, it should do the damage control and take the loss.

2) Revoke a citizenship without granting the accused to defend himself in court?
I am pretty sure this is unconstitutional. This does not make any sense whatsoever. Everybody has to have the right of a fair trial. Court, judge, jury, everything. I have high hope that the next government will get rid, at least, of this part of the provision.

B) 1. Revoking citizenship. First of all, it only applies to dual citizenships. If you have one citizenship, it can't be revoked. If you to keep a life of terrorism / criminal and keep your Canadian citizenship, formally get rid of all your other citizenships you have. It's that simple.

Besides if a minister can give you citizenship, the minister should still be able to revoke it too.

You made a reference to giving citizenship as a bet. Does this mean banks cannot revoke the loans they give to a person if that person doesn't honor it? If a bank can give you a loan, the bank can cancel it as well. A minister should be able to do the same.

B) 2. The accused have a right to due process. He has a right to fair trial. Show up in court and defend yourself in the court of law. If you don't want to show up, fine. You will simply be convicted in absence or worst you are basically stuck without a passport. Losing a passport is not the same as losing citizenship.

 

[bambino]

B) 1. Revoking citizenship. First of all, it only applies to dual citizenships. If you have one citizenship, it can't be revoked. If you to keep a life of terrorism / criminal and keep your Canadian citizenship, formally get rid of all your other citizenships you have. It's that simple.

Besides if a minister can give you citizenship, the minister should still be able to revoke it too.

You made a reference to giving citizenship as a bet. Does this mean banks cannot revoke the loans they give to a person if that person doesn't honor it? If a bank can give you a loan, the bank can cancel it as well. A minister should be able to do the same.

B) 2. The accused have a right to due process. He has a right to fair trial. Show up in court and defend yourself in the court of law. If you don't want to show up, fine. You will simply be convicted in absence or worst you are basically stuck without a passport. Losing a passport is not the same as losing citizenship.

1. It also applies to people who would be entitled to another citizenship. Many, if not most countries, have entitlement to citizenship by descent. Renouncing that other citizenship isn't going to help you as far as Canada is concerned. This provision disproportionately affects immigrants.

2. Under the amended provisions of the Citizenship Act, you have NO recourse to the courts. The Minister may, if he feels like it, go to Federal Court. Do you seriously think he would?

Consider the following. Between 2011 and 2012, some 500 Notifications of Intention to Revoke were sent out. in 2013-14, they basically stopped. CIC’s Departmental Performance Report for the period ending March 31, 2013, stated :
"Increasingly, these notices have been referred to the Federal Court, reaching about 90 percent of all notices served, or about 250 cases at this time. This is significantly higher than anticipated and has a very large impact on resources at CIC and its partners. CIC has decided to limit both the number of notices to revoke issued and the revocation cases ongoing before the Federal Court. "

The Minister promptly identified another, more elegant solution to this problem, and tabled Bill C-24 which contained provisions, now law, cutting the Federal Court out of the citizenship revocation process for most practical purposes.

My prediction: revocations will resume at a high rate, and hardly anyone will be given their day in court.

 

[bambino]

1. In Amalorpavanathan v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), the judge ruled that the court can issue injunctions on the basis of "legitimate expectations of notice, consultation and consideration," which were my legitimate expectations based on the published regulatory process.

2. In Tłı̨chǫ Government v. Canada (Attorney General), the courts did precisely what you've declared as impossible to do: stop provisions of an act that had been given Royal Assent from coming into law.

There's no prima facie argument to preclude me from going forward. Whether I ultimately prevail or not is up to the courts to decide.

I can't believe I actually wasted time looking at this. You completely misunderstood what the first case is about. There is a second decision, which considered the actual merits of the application, which dismissed it entirely. And in that case, there was an official document from the Province of Ontario which promised a 45-day period for consultations with stakeholders, etc.

There are serious issues with the new provisions of the Citizenship Act, but there is no merit to any of the arguments you have brought forward so far.

Kudos for trying to do something though.

 

[screech339]

1. It also applies to people who would be entitled to another citizenship. Many, if not most countries, have entitlement to citizenship by descent. Renouncing that other citizenship isn't going to help you as far as Canada is concerned. This provision disproportionately affects immigrants.

Only those involved in crime and terrorism are affected. Law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about. Don't forget, Canadian born dual are affected by this law too.

2. Under the amended provisions of the Citizenship Act, you have NO recourse to the courts. The Minister may, if he feels like it, go to Federal Court. Do you seriously think he would?

Consider the following. Between 2011 and 2012, some 500 Notifications of Intention to Revoke were sent out. in 2013-14, they basically stopped. CIC's Departmental Performance Report for the period ending March 31, 2013, stated :
"Increasingly, these notices have been referred to the Federal Court, reaching about 90 percent of all notices served, or about 250 cases at this time. This is significantly higher than anticipated and has a very large impact on resources at CIC and its partners. CIC has decided to limit both the number of notices to revoke issued and the revocation cases ongoing before the Federal Court. "

The Minister promptly identified another, more elegant solution to this problem, and tabled Bill C-24 which contained provisions, now law, cutting the Federal Court out of the citizenship revocation process for most practical purposes.

My prediction: revocations will resume at a high rate, and hardly anyone will be given their day in court.

Those 500 DOCUMENTED cases backed up with EVIDENCE are probably found to obtained citizenship through fraud and criminal means. 500 cases out of a million or more applicants who got citizenship is a high rate? I am sure the percentage is so small, it is not a concern for law abiding Canadians.

Let me know when it reached 5% of the naturalized citizenship being revoked and we will talk then. We can then exam how the applicants keep scamming the system through fraud at a high rate and find ways to stop further fraud.

 

[h3a3j6]

Only those involved in crime and terrorism are affected. Law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about. Don't forget, Canadian born dual are affected by this law too.

Those 500 DOCUMENTED cases backed up with EVIDENCE are probably found to obtained citizenship through fraud and criminal means. 500 cases out of a million or more applicants who got citizenship is a high rate? I am sure the percentage is so small, it is not a concern for law abiding Canadians.

On issue no.1, the interpretation of "crime" is problematic in my opinion: The Egyptian/Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy's case portrays it although in this particular instance the Canadian government is certainly not going to strip him from his citizenship... But what would happen if the "crime" does not necessarily align with Canada's interests (political or other)? -- One could quote the cliché "One country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter" here.

For issue no.2, I really this it's really "our" fault. Canada should simply stamp passports in and out or swipe PR cards (just like Australia does for passports) or leverage technology. Both being "immigration" countries the influx of immigrants alone should justify tighter border controls. Some people may argue that this adds an unnecessary overhead on our border opex but I think taxpayers spent (and are still spending) enough money running after fraudulent people that really goes way beyond any measures being implemented. For land access, US border entry should suffice and for international air travel, PR or Passport swiping at the time of checkout will provide minimal hindrance and keep the cost low...

My 2 cents.

 

[screech339]

On issue no.1, the interpretation of "crime" is problematic in my opinion: The Egyptian/Canadian journalist Mohamed Fahmy's case portrays it although in this particular instance the Canadian government is certainly not going to strip him from his citizenship... But what would happen if the "crime" does not necessarily align with Canada's interests (political or other)? -- One could quote the cliché "One country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter" here.

For issue no.2, I really this it's really "our" fault. Canada should simply stamp passports in and out or swipe PR cards (just like Australia does for passports) or leverage technology. Both being "immigration" countries the influx of immigrants alone should justify tighter border controls. Some people may argue that this adds an unnecessary overhead on our border opex but I think taxpayers spent (and are still spending) enough money running after fraudulent people that really goes way beyond any measures being implemented. For land access, US border entry should suffice and for international air travel, PR or Passport swiping at the time of checkout will provide minimal hindrance and keep the cost low...

My 2 cents.

Not if it suit Canada's basic definition of a terrorist. Freedom fighters don't go around killing innocent people.

For example: Turkey considered followers of Gulen to be terrorists. But do they go around killing people, no. So Gulen followers are no terrorists in Canada's eyes.

However IRA (Irish republican army) are considered to be terrorists because they fit the definition of a terrorist. They killed innocent people for their cause.

 

[h3a3j6]

Not if it suit Canada's basic definition of a terrorist. Freedom fighters don't go around killing innocent people.

For example: Turkey considered followers of Gulen to be terrorists. But do they go around killing people, no. So Gulen followers are no terrorists in Canada's eyes.

However IRA (Irish republican army) are considered to be terrorists because they fit the definition of a terrorist. They killed innocent people for their cause.

Screech,

Not wanting to turn this into a political debate but the "basic" definition of a terrorist is also debatable, worldwide examples are available where the definition of "terrorist" changes depending on whom you are asking the question to. Canada always had a privileged position worldwide of positive neutrality that I found simply magnificent. Everyone loves Canada and Canadians.

 

[crimesinister]

Update: The letter to the Privy Council has been sent respectfully requesting them to refrain from consenting to or delivering to the Governor General the regulations recently announced.

 

[rub115]

It would be amazing to listen your statement before a judge ;D
Your lawyer would want the earth swallow him.

If you reside abroad, you don't pay taxes in Canada except you have business, properties, etc here but you don't pay taxes regarding your work income so I guess you have no idea what you're talking about.

I agree completely. This is extremely stupid. However - i do fear the citizenship revocation on principle. A Canadian who is BORN here can never lose his/her citizenship but someone who immigrated can?

What if someone got their citizenship in 2014 and lost their job (think Alberta today) and now they have one option - sit at home and collect EI or work in the US. Would that mean they dont intend to settle in Canada? I think there are flaws in the law - but i dont think OP's arguments make any logical sense.

 

[neutral]

I agree completely. This is extremely stupid. However - i do fear the citizenship revocation on principle. A Canadian who is BORN here can never lose his/her citizenship but someone who immigrated can?

WRONG. I Canadian BORN in Canada CAN lose his citizenship if :

a) He has a second citizenship

and

b) He has been sentenced in a court of law for criminal activities

What if someone got their citizenship in 2014 and lost their job (think Alberta today) and now they have one option - sit at home and collect EI or work in the US. Would that mean they dont intend to settle in Canada? I think there are flaws in the law - but i dont think OP's arguments make any logical sense.

If this guy living with the EI or working in US has not been sentenced for being a criminal, his Canadian citizenship CAN'T be revoked. There are hundred of thousands of Canadian living abroad, more of them retired people and that won't change and nobody will revoke their citizenship.

 

[neutral]

Update: The letter to the Privy Council has been sent respectfully requesting them to refrain from consenting to or delivering to the Governor General the regulations recently announced.

Sure .... tomorrow the Privy Council is stopping the new law ....

 

[keesio]

WRONG. I Canadian BORN in Canada CAN lose his citizenship if :

a) He has a second citizenship

and

b) He has been sentenced in a court of law for criminal activities

And also a Canadian who legally acquired Citizenship via naturalization cannot have it revoked if they renounced any other citizenship they had before and only have a Canadian citizenship. This is because Canada cannot strip citizenship if it will leave that person stateless.