lawsuits against C24

[torontosm]

And when I wrote: "A person born in Canada (without other citizenships) isn't stripped of his/her citizenship for committing a crime", it wasn't clear that I was referring to Canadians WITHOUT OTHER CITIZENSHIPS? In other words, yes, a person born in Canada with other citizenships CAN be stripped of his/her citizenship.

I was referring to your earlier comment about two classes of citizenship. The distinction is not between citizens that were born in Canada and those that are naturalized (as you asserted), but rather between those that are dual citizens and those that aren't. If you are so against the new law, give up your other citizenship and you have nothing to worry about as no one can ever strip you of your Canadian citizenship. Simple.

 

[alphazip]

I was referring to your earlier comment about two classes of citizenship. The distinction is not between citizens that were born in Canada and those that are naturalized (as you asserted), but rather between those that are dual citizens and those that aren't. If you are so against the new law, give up your other citizenship and you have nothing to worry about as no one can ever strip you of your Canadian citizenship. Simple.

Rather than making an appointment in Toronto for months in the future and paying $2,350 to renounce U.S. citizenship, I'll just wait for the lawsuits by the Constitutional Rights Centre and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association to make their way through the courts. The Canadian Bar Association found the provisions you're apparently fond of to be "likely unconstitutional", so we'll see if the Supreme Court agrees. http://www.straight.com/news/650311/immigration-bill-c-24-decried-path-two-tiered-canadian-citizenship

 

[screech339]

Rather than making an appointment in Toronto for months in the future and paying $2,350 to renounce U.S. citizenship, I'll just wait for the lawsuits by the Constitutional Rights Centre and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association to make their way through the courts. The Canadian Bar Association found the provisions you're apparently fond of to be "likely unconstitutional", so we'll see if the Supreme Court agrees. http://www.straight.com/news/650311/immigration-bill-c-24-decried-path-two-tiered-canadian-citizenship

Where do you get the number figure of $2340 to renounce US citizenship?

*edit*
Never mind. That is the renunciation fee. Jumped from about 400. Wow. That's Obama for you.

I guess Obama wanted all the ex-pats americans to pay for his Obamacare. Someone got to pay for it. After all it is still cheaper for healthy people to pay the fine of not buying insurance until they actually get sick.

Screech339

 

[alphazip]

"U.S. Hikes Fee To Renounce Citizenship By 422%": http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/28/u-s-hikes-fee-to-renounce-citizenship-by-422/

"Apparently, dual citizens in Canada trying to shed their U.S. citizenship have created a backlog at the U.S. consulate in Toronto that stretches into the third week of January 2015."

Of course, these renunciations are mainly based on tax considerations (only the U.S. & Eritrea tax based on citizenship), not Bill C-24. U.S. tax regulations have created an oppressive burden for U.S. citizens living in Canada. Let your bank account reach $10,000, file a form. Open a TFSA...big mistake...pay tax and file a form. Buy a Canadian stock, file another form.

 

[IvanP]

"U.S. Hikes Fee To Renounce Citizenship By 422%": http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/08/28/u-s-hikes-fee-to-renounce-citizenship-by-422/

"Apparently, dual citizens in Canada trying to shed their U.S. citizenship have created a backlog at the U.S. consulate in Toronto that stretches into the third week of January 2015."

Of course, these renunciations are mainly based on tax considerations (only the U.S. & Eritrea tax based on citizenship), not Bill C-24. U.S. tax regulations have created an oppressive burden for U.S. citizens living in Canada. Let your bank account reach $10,000, file a form. Open a TFSA...big mistake...pay tax and file a form. Buy a Canadian stock, file another form.

It's a PITA, that's for sure. And for all the forms you have to file, they don't collect much if anything from most of us.

 

[MasterGeek]

And when I wrote: "A person born in Canada (without other citizenships) isn't stripped of his/her citizenship for committing a crime", it wasn't clear that I was referring to Canadians WITHOUT OTHER CITIZENSHIPS? In other words, yes, a person born in Canada with other citizenships CAN be stripped of his/her citizenship.

How would the Canadian government learn that a Canadian born citizen has acquired or has the right to acquire another citizenship ? Only naturalization applicants have to disclose their other citizenships when applying for Canadian citizenship.


So the citizenship revocation articles are actually target naturalized citizens. It uses "dual citizenship" instead of "naturalized citizen" to avoid being deemed unconstitutional but they know that almost all dual citizens are naturalized citizens.

 

[alphazip]

How would the Canadian government learn that a Canadian born citizen has acquired or has the right to acquire another citizenship ? Only naturalization applicants have to disclose their other citizenships when applying for Canadian citizenship.


So the citizenship revocation articles are actually target naturalized citizens. It uses "dual citizenship" instead of "naturalized citizen" to avoid being deemed unconstitutional but they know that almost all dual citizens are naturalized citizens.

In most cases, yes, that is correct. In my case, I'm a Canadian citizen by descent (not naturalization) and I had to disclose my U.S. citizenship on the application for a certificate of citizenship. However, I agree...they're targeting naturalized citizens.

 

[braindead]

The "intention to reside forever in Canada" worries me I just became a PR, and I wonder what will happen if 20 years later I wish to move to another country for a better job offer.

 

[IvanP]

The "intention to reside forever in Canada" worries me I just became a PR, and I wonder what will happen if 20 years later I wish to move to another country for a better job offer.

Your intent at the time of filing is what matters. Changing your mind later is not a problem.

 

[Oct13]

In my view, the problem is with how many immigrants as well as probably the policy makers look at the Canadian citizenship. Those who look at it as a privilege, see no wrong on stripping someone from it shall he committed certain crimes. However, a citizenship is not a privilege, it is rather an identity and a responsibility.

Laws such as stripping someone, regardless of the type of the crime, from his citizenship does not simply make it a citizenship! A law like the second generation of a Canadian born outside Canada being non-Canadian is also an indication that those who made it did not view the Canadian citizenship as a citizenship.

 

[newtone]

I think we need to sue the government cause all the people who have satisfied the 1095 days physical presence should be called for citizenship right way and not leave them hanging for additional 2 to 3 years. I mean within 24 hours otherwise the government is not holding their share of the promise. The most dumbest reason is backlog, cause the back log can easily be cleared by employing more people and if employing more people is a reason for the delay then employ them on a temporary basis with minimum wage. This way there is no long term commitment from the government and they also dont have to give them any kind of benefit. I anyone is planning to go for a class action law suit please let me know. Hopefully we can organize something so that we can make a government OF the people of Canada FOR the people of Canada TO serve the people of Canada. Its bad enough when we dont serve the 1095 day physical presence and the government is after us, its high time the government start to keep their share of the promise for people who have actually completed 1095 days physical presence.

 

[MaddieHat]

Your intent at the time of filing is what matters. Changing your mind later is not a problem.

IvanP: What is your source to this information? Is this true? A dual citizen is able to change their mind later? This is my biggest problem with the new citizenship law. What if necessity requires a naturalized citizen to go back to their country of origin to care for an ailing relative for an extended period of time or to move to a different country for a better job opportunity? What are the rights and protections for naturalized dual citizens in those instances under C24?

 

[SenoritaBella]

One of the many rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is mobility rights - i.e. Canadian citizens can enter and leave the country freely as well as apply for a passport. I don't see how the "intent to reside" thing can legally interfere with your mobility rights. So relax.

 

[MaddieHat]

One of the many rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is mobility rights - i.e. Canadian citizens can enter and leave the country freely as well as apply for a passport. I don't see how the "intent to reside" thing can legally interfere with your mobility rights. So relax.

Yes, I reread the legislation and found this:

"1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c.1) and 11(1)(d.1), the person’s intention must be continuous from the date of his or her application until they have taken the oath of citizenship."

This clause follows on:

3. (1) Paragraphs 5(1)(c) to (e) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(c.1) intends, if granted citizenship,
(i) to continue to reside in Canada

So, it must be obvious the criteria one must intend to reside in Canada is only meant for those who have made application for citizenship until they have taken the oath of citizenship. If this is not so, then why are all the media pundits stating there are two tiers of citizenship (or more) in which citizens naturalized after C24 is in place will have to stay permanently in Canada or risk having their citizenship revoked?

 

[IvanP]

Yes, I reread the legislation and found this:

"1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c.1) and 11(1)(d.1), the person's intention must be continuous from the date of his or her application until they have taken the oath of citizenship."

This clause follows on:

3. (1) Paragraphs 5(1)(c) to (e) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(c.1) intends, if granted citizenship,
(i) to continue to reside in Canada

So, it must be obvious the criteria one must intend to reside in Canada is only meant for those who have made application for citizenship until they have taken the oath of citizenship. If this is not so, then why are all the media pundits stating there are two tiers of citizenship (or more) in which citizens naturalized after C24 is in place will have to stay permanently in Canada or risk having their citizenship revoked?

I would guess it's because the pundits aren't very bright.