abmills said:
Thank you for the clarifications, duly noted. May she grow up to be a model citizen.
What about her being a dual citizen? Say, will her being absent/not in Canada also caused its revocation even if she was born here? Or this issue (dual citizens who's away from Canada) only applies to the Naturalized Canadian who's holding Dual citizenship?
Because from the below quote it says:
Quote+++
The new law divides Canadians into two classes of citizens: first class Canadians who hold no other citizenship, and second class Canadians – dual citizens, who can have their right to live in Canada taken away from them. Even if you are born in Canada, you are at risk of losing citizenship if you have dual citizenship or the possibility of dual citizenship. You may not even know that you possess another citizenship. If you have a spouse, parent, or grandparent who is a citizen of another country, you may have a right to citizenship without ever having applied for it. The proposed law would put you at risk of losing your Canadian citizenship if the Minister asserts that you possess or could obtain another citizenship.
Unquote+++
//Source from Straight[dot]com news if-bill-c-24-passes-canadian-citizenship-will-be-harder-get-and-easier-lose//
I am largely in agreement with more recent posts. In particular, the so-called risk of losing citizenship is greatly over-exaggerated.
There are no grounds for revoking citizenship based on general criminality regardless of the severity of the crime or the length of a sentence imposed.
The new law, when it comes into effect, adds grounds for revocation based on criminal
convictions for serious terrorism or treason.
I am posting this because it warrants emphasizing the extent to which, as has been noted already, that there are voices or sources who at the very least grossly exaggerate the so-called creation of two classes of citizenship by the
SCCA.
I would note that while
torontosm describes it as "fear-mongering," and in many contexts that is a fair description, there are a lot of people and sources repeating the exaggerated risks who are merely passing along what they have picked up, some of it from legitimate and what should be better researched sources, and not just the media . . . for example, to its discredit, even the Canadian Bar Association contributed to much misunderstanding in this respect a year ago in its submission to Parliament regarding Bill C-24 . . . so it has been difficult for more reasoned individuals to put some of the changes into context. This is not to say that the
SCCA does not treat some citizens differently than others. It does. Dual citizens in particular. But the law if rife with distinctions and legitimate bases for discrimination, and that does not amount to creating different
classes of citizenship.
And as is implicit in the post by
screech339, the distinction of dual citizenship is mandated since Canada is bound by treaty and international law to not create statelessness, so its recourse against citizens who do not have citizenship or a right to citizenship in another country is restricted.
Moreover, it is difficult except where it is clear and essentially already established as of record in the judicial process leading to the necessary
conviction, which is a prerequisite to revocation for terrorism or treason, to see the path the government can reasonably take to make a sufficient showing that a person has citizenship in another country. It is easy to foresee this as an almost never utilized provision of law, and even if utilized, then only in the most clear cut cases.
We're non-residents who just gave birth here in Canada, therefore our child is a Canadian citizen by birth, who also has the possibility of dual citizenship. Will our child be affected by Bill C-24 and have the high risk losing her Canadian citizenship even though she is born here? 