What is second class citizen

[shaig]

You guys are very off point. Second class citizen has nothing to do with intent to reside (especially since that only applies till your oath date aka before being a citizen). Second class citizen is being talked about because under the new law, citizens with dual citizenships and those who immigrated here can have their citizenship revoked while other Canadians cannot. Making it a two-tiers system. Granted the basis of revoking citizenship is if one commits a crime against national security but it raises concerns ie in the case of the Canadian-Egyptian Al Jazeera journalist who was deemed "terrorist" by Egypt. If you're a law abiding citizen, this is not much of a concern however it is the principle that you are not equal to someone who was born here with no link to another country. It's discriminatory.

 

[keesio]

Just let you know
I talked minimum 3 good lawyer
They said you can move after getting PR
It's nothing wrong

But it is good to stay nominated providence 6-8 months after PR so that you can prove you tried to settlement but you got good job other province
So you moved

Exactly! You are free to move as long as your intent at the beginning was to settle in the province.

Same with Citizenship. You are free to leave as long as your intent at the beginning was to stay in Canada.

I don't know why so many people are freaking out about this.

 

[ZingyDNA]

Exactly! You are free to move as long as your intent at the beginning was to settle in the province.

Same with Citizenship. You are free to leave as long as your intent at the beginning was to stay in Canada.

I don't know why so many people are freaking out about this.

If intent is so hard to prove, why would they put it in the application in the first place? Someone's intention can change 10 seconds after oath. Why put something pretty much impractical in the law? Either it's to please certain type of voters, or to open future opportunities for more strict citizenship law. Maybe both...

 

[keesio]

Either it's to please certain type of voters

Yes.

Maybe people (including myself) have been saying all along that this is mostly a PR move.

 

[MUFC]

Yes.

Maybe people (including myself) have been saying all along that this is mostly a PR move.

Completely agree with you.

But we have to admit that they achieved the reactions they need, when we see how many think that this is a serious danger.

 

[keesio]

You guys are very off point. Second class citizen has nothing to do with intent to reside (especially since that only applies till your oath date aka before being a citizen). Second class citizen is being talked about because under the new law, citizens with dual citizenships and those who immigrated here can have their citizenship revoked while other Canadians cannot. Making it a two-tiers system. Granted the basis of revoking citizenship is if one commits a crime against national security but it raises concerns ie in the case of the Canadian-Egyptian Al Jazeera journalist who was deemed "terrorist" by Egypt. If you're a law abiding citizen, this is not much of a concern however it is the principle that you are not equal to someone who was born here with no link to another country. It's discriminatory.

If you are a naturalized citizen and give up your previous citizenship (which happens often for people who come from countries that do not recognize dual like India), then you cannot be stripped of citizenship (assuming you acquired citizenship legally) because CIC cannot allow anyone to be stateless.

I suppose you can say that the "second class" is anyone who has dual citizenship (whether born in Canada or naturalized). But this "second class" for dual citizenships is common around the world. For example, Americans who are dual citizens are excluded from certain high-level government jobs like director of the CIA since the highest US security clearance is only accessible to US citizens with no other citizenship. It is because you have split loyalities. Nearly every country has these distinctions. Some resolve this by simply not allowing dual citizenship. At least Canada allows it. It is your choice to remain dual. I am dual and I know that I have certain restriction in both the county I immigrated from (US) and Canada. It is my choice to remain so.

 

[shaig]

If you are a naturalized citizen and give up your previous citizenship (which happens often for people who come from countries that do not recognize dual like India), then you cannot be stripped of citizenship (assuming you acquired citizenship legally) because CIC cannot allow anyone to be stateless.

I suppose you can say that the "second class" is anyone who has dual citizenship (whether born in Canada or naturalized). But this "second class" for dual citizenships is common around the world. For example, Americans who are dual citizens are excluded from certain high-level government jobs like director of the CIA since the highest US security clearance is only accessible to US citizens with no other citizenship. It is because you have split loyalities. Nearly every country has these distinctions. Some resolve this by simply not allowing dual citizenship. At least Canada allows it. It is your choice to remain dual. I am dual and I know that I have certain restriction in both the county I immigrated from (US) and Canada. It is my choice to remain so.

Actually, you don't need to have dual citizenship yourself. Citizens who are only Canadian but have parents or grandparents who are citizens of another country, making them eligible to get that other citizenship, can have their Canadian citizenship revoked as well if they commit such crimes. Why have two people commit the same crime yet one gets exiled and the other doesn't? And I don't believe comparing Canada with other countries is a justification at all. Just because something is common doesn't make it right. This part of the law eliminates equal citizenship rights for all and violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of the greatest things about this country that's not present in many others is how significant equality is, and this goes against it.

 

[polara69]

Simply stick to the law, abide it, then there is nothing to be afraid of.. If you join ISIS you should get more than just your citizenship revoked!

 

[Zaker]

Simply stick to the law, abide it, then there is nothing to be afraid of.. If you join ISIS you should get more than just your citizenship revoked!

I think the most problematic point of the new bill is that the minister can revoke citizenship and you can not appeal in the court! Even a terrorist has a right to appeal. This is a dangerous tool in the hands of CIC and they can accuse anyone they want while he or she has no chance to defend.

 

[dav3000]

You guys are very off point. Second class citizen has nothing to do with intent to reside (especially since that only applies till your oath date aka before being a citizen). Second class citizen is being talked about because under the new law, citizens with dual citizenships and those who immigrated here can have their citizenship revoked while other Canadians cannot. Making it a two-tiers system. Granted the basis of revoking citizenship is if one commits a crime against national security but it raises concerns ie in the case of the Canadian-Egyptian Al Jazeera journalist who was deemed "terrorist" by Egypt. If you're a law abiding citizen, this is not much of a concern however it is the principle that you are not equal to someone who was born here with no link to another country. It's discriminatory.

Exactly. If you do not commit any crime and are not charged with an act terrorism, there is nothing to worry about.

 

[deweysmith]

The other thing people are concerned about is inability to declare children born abroad as citizens if you yourself were not born in Canada. Funny thing is, this is how it works pretty much worldwide. There are some legit concerns about children who became citizens via adoption, and it's a little weird they don't have an exception contingent on residency like the U.S.

Example: my children will always be U.S. citizens because I grew up in the U.S., but if they want their kids to be citizens all the need to do is live in the U.S. for 4+ years and then their children gain U.S. citizenship at birth regardless of where they were born. This "right" is essentially stripped from Canadians who were adopted, which is bizarre to me because I have a friend who has lived in Canada most of his life, is in the Canadian Forces, and can't pass citizenship to his kids unless they are Canadian-born because his wife is American and he was born in Europe. This has ALWAYS been the case for him, nothing changed for him with C-24.

 

[isilrion]

Exactly. If you do not commit any crime and are not charged with an act terrorism, there is nothing to worry about.

How so? You can be charged even if you didn't commit any crime. That's what trials are for. Coincidentally, this law gives the Minister the power to impose a punishment (exile) without trial. That is, if the Minister claims that he has reasons to exile you (be it misrepresentation, or conviction for certain crimes), it is up to you to prove, to the Minister (not to a judge), that he is mistaken. Good luck with that.

Of course, I expect that no minister will dare to abuse it in a really egregious way (such as claiming that someone was jailed for a terrorism offense, for an accused who has never been jailed). But who is to say that it won't be abused in more subtle, lower profile cases (e.g., looking for the tiniest error in the application so the government can exile someone deemed "undesirable")? I really hope some kind of civilian watchdog starts scrutinizing every revocation under C-24.

 

[OP_POP]

Simply stick to the law, abide it, then there is nothing to be afraid of.. If you join ISIS you should get more than just your citizenship revoked!

Absolutely, thank you.

 

[done]

If intent is so hard to prove, why would they put it in the application in the first place? Someone's intention can change 10 seconds after oath. Why put something pretty much impractical in the law? Either it's to please certain type of voters, or to open future opportunities for more strict citizenship law. Maybe both...

I guess thats the best answer
Either it's to please certain type of voters, or to open future opportunities for more strict citizenship law. Maybe both...

 

[emamabd]

This clause really is intended only for people who wanted to be citizens for convenience from the start.

Whats the difference (from CIC perspective) between a "new citizen" working abroad for an extended period of time and a "citizen of convenience".