To be clear, there is no legal classification of citizenship in Canada. A citizen is a citizen.
The so-called "second class citizen" characterization is entirely derived from criticisms of certain provisions of the
SCCA. "In effect . . . " the criticism goes, the new provisions "create two classes of citizenship."
There is no legal distinction as such.
In contrast, however, there are scores and scores of distinctions made, in law and by the government, relative to different groups of citizens, pursuant to which the rights of individual citizens may be more or less restricted. Those convicted of indictable offences, for example, may be subject to severely restricted mobility.
Been convicted of murder? Argue as loud as one might about how the Charter protects your
mobility rights, since you are a citizen, odds are you will be confined to the grounds of a fairly small institutional facility for a very long time, most of that time confined to a rather small space within that facility.
Which is to say, the characterization of "second class citizens" is almost entirely rhetorical, of minimal if any legal significance. What has legal significance is actual conduct and the consequences of that conduct. Commit a serious crime, go to prison. Commit treason, go to prison. Commit acts of terrorism, die or go to prison. Now, if you are a dual citizen, commit treason or acts of terrorism, and while you are in prison your citizenship status may be taken away so long as it does not render you stateless (if this part of the
SCCA withstands constitutional challenges).
In the meantime, the rest of us, the vast, vast majority of us, try to keep our jobs and earn a living, do what we can to support and educate our families, and offer what help we can to our friends and neighbours, giving time or money to this or that charity effort along the way . . . and where I live, this time of year we hunker down and avoid the swarms of black flies and mosquitoes who want our blood (there's a reason why I so much like the Canadian winter).
ZingyDNA said:
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...
Seems you have been part of other discussions in which this query was clearly answered:
neither, but rather to preclude the
applicant-applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport (a pet peeve of the Tories) and to discourage
taking-the-oath-on-the-way-to-the-airport, as well as including giving CIC some rather powerful tools for probing the background and continuing foreign ties of those applying for citizenship. That's plenty of why.
BTW: Intent is not hard to prove. The inclusion of an intent element in the law is very common in many contexts. Like with any fact, a decision maker can examine and consider relevant evidence and based on the evidence conclude what an individual's intent is. What the individual says his or her intent is, is of course relevant evidence, but not the only evidence, not at all binding or definitive. For example, the applicant for citizenship who has taken a job abroad while the application is pending, can protest vehemently that his intent is to continue to reside in Canada if granted citizenship, but CIC is likely to conclude otherwise, for obvious reasons.
