Toward Understanding Bill C-6 to Amend Citizenship Act; new 3/5 rule plus

[torontosm]

It's the latter. Stopping that would let read fraudsters off the hook (which is impossible), carrying it over would make you look unfair and inhuman. Now they are trying to establish a more Charter-compliant process as soon as possible.

Regardless of who passed the laws, they are being enforced more vigorously now than ever before. And, no one is trying to establish anything that is Charter-compliant. In fact, this issue was not even considered to be included in C6 until one of JT's cabinet cronies ran afoul of the law.

 

[admontreal]

Regardless of who passed the laws, they are being enforced more vigorously now than ever before. And, no one is trying to establish anything that is Charter-compliant. In fact, this issue was not even considered to be included in C6 until one of JT's cabinet cronies ran afoul of the law.

Yes, but as you're gonna see, the C-24 new revocation process was anything but compliant with the Charter.

 

[Natan]

Regardless of who passed the laws, they are being enforced more vigorously now than ever before. And, no one is trying to establish anything that is Charter-compliant. In fact, this issue was not even considered to be included in C6 until one of JT's cabinet cronies ran afoul of the law.

It is entirely possible that IRCC began their investigations into these cases during the late [Conservative] Government. How does the current [Liberal] Government instruct IRCC to close it's open investigations and withdraw it's open cases (in effect, stop enforcing the law) without creating a political firestorm?

Nothing moves a politician to change their stance on a position like having it effect someone close to home. If a cabinet crony being effected by a bad law is enough for the PMO to move to change that law, then I'm all for it. It's no different from when virulently anti-gay politicians in the USA make an about face and become supportive of same-sex marriage once they discover their child is lesbian or gay. I don't care why they've changed their mind, I only care that they have changed their mind and they're ready to make better laws because of it.

 

[admontreal]

It is entirely possible that IRCC began their investigations into these cases during the late [Conservative] Government. How does the current [Liberal] Government instruct IRCC to close it's open investigations and withdraw it's open cases (in effect, stop enforcing the law) without creating a political firestorm?

Nothing moves a politician to change their stance on a position like having it effect someone close to home. If a cabinet crony being effected by a bad law is enough for the PMO to move to change that law, then I'm all for it. It's no different from when virulently anti-gay politicians in the USA make an about face and become supportive of same-sex marriage once they discover their child is lesbian or gay. I don't care why they've changed their mind, I only care that they have changed their mind and they're ready to make better laws because of it.

Well said. It's a bit sad that it should take one 'close-to-home' persone VS. 1000 anonymous people but if it's what it takes to have a fair law why not ?

 

[Coffee1981]

I appreciate your sentiment of fairness, but the Liberals continue to strip 60 people of citizenship a month, many of whom presumably for doing the exact same thing that Monsef did. Justice should be equal and the law should apply in the same manner for all Canadians. After all, isn't this what Trudeau campaigned on?

I can assure that the people the government are stripping are NOT forgetting to dot i's or putting something as minor as their place of birth wrong on their form. The people they are revoking are criminals who lied about their past, or resident cheats, or marriage of convenience shysters. Let's stop pretending those 60 people a month are angels. They're scum. What Monsef did is fairly inconsequential. Honestly. There's a huge difference between the wrong city of birth and, say, doing time in US prison as a child rapist and then sneaking into Canada as a phony refugee claimant.

 

[Coffee1981]

Yes, but as you're gonna see, the C-24 new revocation process was anything but compliant with the Charter.

I completely beg to differ. I've heard the lawyers are having one heck of a time explaining themselves to the judge as to how protecting the feelings of liars and criminals should be charter compliant.

 

[admontreal]

I completely beg to differ. I've heard the lawyers are having one heck of a time explaining themselves to the judge as to how protecting the feelings of liars and criminals should be charter compliant.

Whether we like it or not, these criminals are Canadian and shouldn't stop being Canadian because of their crimes. Today the terrorists, tomorrow the shoplifters ?
Even more troubling, some criminals won't stop being Canadian while others would. Why ? ? How can you agree with such a stupid nonsense ?
Regarding the liars, if they truly are, they were never Canadians as the grant of citizenship was based on their bullsh*t. However, establishing those lies has to go through a thorough and fair process, much more than the ridiculous paper they receive from the same agent who would make the decision.
The Charter is not about protecting feelings. It's about establishing equal rights and due process.
Just for the record and my own knowledge, where did you hear that the lawyers had any 'heck of a time' explaining anything to any judge ? Rocco Galati's challenge took a very unusual road to prove that the law wasn't constitutional (a road that didn't have anything to do with the Charter) while the BCCLA had a very strong case that was never heard. As Trudeau came to power right after and tabled C-6 to repeal some provisions.

 

[Natan]

... They're scum. ...doing time in US prison as a child rapist and then sneaking into Canada as a phony refugee claimant.

In the U.S.A., upwards of 80% of criminal cases are resolved with plea bargains. It is estimated that more than 50% of plea bargains result in the conviction of someone innocent of the crime they are accused of committing. Defendants are threatened with long prison terms if they don't plead guilty and accept the plea bargain. Considering that the average U.S. public defender spends less than five minutes on each case (in some states, it's only one minute per case), poor and working class defendant's have no realistic access to legal aid. They are often faced with the simple choice of pleading guilty and being sentenced to a few years in prison, or pleading innocent and facing a few decades in prison.

What if the "child rapist" from the USA was, in fact, innocent of the crime and snuck into Canada after being released from prison, because they are genuinely seeking refuge from the U.S. justice system? Under current treaties between the U.S. and Canada, such a person is ineligible for refugee status in Canada, thus "a phony refugee claimant". Is this the "scum" you are referring to?

 

[admontreal]

I can assure that the people the government are stripping are NOT forgetting to dot i's or putting something as minor as their place of birth wrong on their form. The people they are revoking are criminals who lied about their past, or resident cheats, or marriage of convenience shysters. Let's stop pretending those 60 people a month are angels. They're scum. What Monsef did is fairly inconsequential. Honestly. There's a huge difference between the wrong city of birth and, say, doing time in US prison as a child rapist and then sneaking into Canada as a phony refugee claimant.

You're are certainly right for the majority of them, but a fair process with a hearing and multiple and impartial decision makers would enable us to be sure they were not angels as you say. And what about their kids ? Do you want to send them to a country they don't know 20 years later ? A judge is better 'tooled' than a bureaucrat to assess the seriousness of the lies Vs. The consequence on the life of people who came here as kids. Life is almost never about black or white issues.

 

[Coffee1981]

In the U.S.A., upwards of 80% of criminal cases are resolved with plea bargains. It is estimated that more than 50% of plea bargains result in the conviction of someone innocent of the crime they are accused of committing. Defendants are threatened with long prison terms if they don't plead guilty and accept the plea bargain. Considering that the average U.S. public defender spends less than five minutes on each case (in some states, it's only one minute per case), poor and working class defendant's have no realistic access to legal aid. They are often faced with the simple choice of pleading guilty and being sentenced to a few years in prison, or pleading innocent and facing a few decades in prison.

What if the "child rapist" from the USA was, in fact, innocent of the crime and snuck into Canada after being released from prison, because they are genuinely seeking refuge from the U.S. justice system? Under current treaties between the U.S. and Canada, such a person is ineligible for refugee status in Canada, thus "a phony refugee claimant". Is this the "scum" you are referring to?

Actually, yes. It's incumbent upon a person to disclose their entire history to the IRB in order for the board member to make a fair and accurate decision. A conviction MUST be disclosed.

 

[Coffee1981]

Regarding the liars, if they truly are, they were never Canadians as the grant of citizenship was based on their bullsh*t.

And therein lies the problem. Revocation of citizenship is the only available legal remedy for people who did lie and take the whole country for suckers. These are people who, if the truth was known on the outset, would never have been eligible to take the oath.

You can't believe I'm defending the practice, and I can't believe you're willing to just let people have a free pass for doing **** like that. It's the principle of the thing.

 

[Coffee1981]

You're are certainly right for the majority of them, but a fair process with a hearing and multiple and impartial decision makers would enable us to be sure they were not angels as you say. And what about their kids ? Do you want to send them to a country they don't know 20 years later ? A judge is better 'tooled' than a bureaucrat to assess the seriousness of the lies Vs. The consequence on the life of people who came here as kids. Life is almost never about black or white issues.

Citizenship is granted based on one's parentage. If it's say a residence case and the kid's never even lived here a day and they're off partying in Dubai with their Porsche and 1% lifestyle, no, I have no qualms on stripping them of their citizenship tomorrow. They can be angry at their mom or dad for taking away their undeserved passport.

I do, however, have a heart, and agree that if the child has been in Canada for years and years and is clearly established, they should be able to keep their citizenship. However, on the other hand, what's the point of having warnings on minor's citizenship applications stating consequences could happen to the child if the parent lies on the application if its never enforced?

I disagree with your assessment that a judge is somehow better equipped than a bureaucrat to handle cases. Public servants, despite what people think, are not programmed robots or village idiots. They're highly intelligent people. Look for the news story today about the judge that granted a woman Canadian citizenship on the grounds that she left her son's placenta in Canada and tell me if you think Judges always get it right.

 

[admontreal]

And therein lies the problem. Revocation of citizenship is the only available legal remedy for people who did lie and take the whole country for suckers. These are people who, if the truth was known on the outset, would never have been eligible to take the oath.

You can't believe I'm defending the practice, and I can't believe you're willing to just let people have a free pass for doing **** like that. It's the principle of the thing.

Why do you keep repeating that I am against citizenship revocation for fraud ? It's necessary but it has to be done with a fair and judicial process.
We won't give a free pass but they need to chance to defend themselves in front of a judge, not an official possibly elected by ignorants...

 

[admontreal]

Citizenship is granted based on one's parentage. If it's say a residence case and the kid's never even lived here a day and they're off partying in Dubai with their Porsche and 1% lifestyle, no, I have no qualms on stripping them of their citizenship tomorrow. They can be angry at their mom or dad for taking away their undeserved passport.

I do, however, have a heart, and agree that if the child has been in Canada for years and years and is clearly established, they should be able to keep their citizenship. However, on the other hand, what's the point of having warnings on minor's citizenship applications stating consequences could happen to the child if the parent lies on the application if its never enforced?

I disagree with your assessment that a judge is somehow better equipped than a bureaucrat to handle cases. Public servants, despite what people think, are not programmed robots or village idiots. They're highly intelligent people. Look for the news story today about the judge that granted a woman Canadian citizenship on the grounds that she left her son's placenta in Canada and tell me if you think Judges always get it right.

Honestly, if you haven't spent years and years studying law and practicing it, you shouldn't question a Judge's ability to interpret the Law, let alone comparing that ability to a civil servant's one. I spent all my life between Canada and Europe and although most of the civil servants I met were very nice people, they don't have the experience and culture to have such a power as removing the citizenship of a person, even when the facts are clear and obvious. Regarding the placenta story, I invite you to read the full ruling, as I don't trust the media in their ability to objectively report judicial developments.
Regarding the kids citizenship revocation, I explicitely referred to kids having spent most of their lives here, like the egyptian-born young woman who lost her citizenship while she was trying to focus on her studies, not the Dubai 1% spoiled Porsche darlings (on which we both agree)...

 

[nsapp]

Any news on this bill? Eagerly waiting for some activity... :-X