Effective date of Bill C24

[MUFC]

your taxes are paying for my education douche ,if your minister kicks me out,it`ll cost them $50,000.

Your loss.Never will be mine. good night.

I love to give charity to those in need, so you are welcome .

So when do you thing that my Minister will start to kick the people out?

 

[CanadianCountry]

MUFC,
Being nice doesnt cost a thing. I know you are not vying for the popular vote. I bet you can even laugh at somebody dying of a terminal disease.

I love to give charity to those in need, so you are welcome .

So when do you thing that my Minister will start to kick the people out?

 

[valigap31]

All right, 8 years in Canada +2 more years. I was wondering if the immigration law in going to change in following years again and again, I was wondering if I ever going to be citizen or I have to continue to be stateless as long as I am in this country. What will happen if one day I become citizen of Canada and after they decided take it back from me.

 

[screech339]

All right, 8 years in Canada +2 more years. I was wondering if the immigration law in going to change in following years again and again, I was wondering if I ever going to be citizen or I have to continue to be stateless as long as I am in this country. What will happen if one day I become citizen of Canada and after they decided take it back from me.

If Canadian citizenship is your only citizenship after being stateless, you won't lose your citizenship as Canada cannot make their citizens stateless.

 

[punk]

If Canadian citizenship is your only citizenship after being stateless, you won't lose your citizenship as Canada cannot make their citizens stateless.

They cant take your citizenship if you are not eligible for any other country citizenship. If you are, they can. This law would be enforced in very very rare situation though such as terrorism or high profile cases.

 

[MUFC]

MUFC,
Being nice doesnt cost a thing. I know you are not vying for the popular vote. I bet you can even laugh at somebody dying of a terminal disease.

I can only laugh at somebody who is perfectly fine and healthy, but he is the only one who thinks that he has terminal disease.

This is why I am laughing here with the intend to reside FAKE Paranoia ;D

 

[torontosm]

All right, 8 years in Canada +2 more years. I was wondering if the immigration law in going to change in following years again and again, I was wondering if I ever going to be citizen or I have to continue to be stateless as long as I am in this country. What will happen if one day I become citizen of Canada and after they decided take it back from me.

The law will change as often as the government deems necessary to protect the interests of Canadians. Deal with it.

 

[screech339]

They cant take your citizenship if you are not eligible for any other country citizenship. If you are, they can. This law would be enforced in very very rare situation though such as terrorism or high profile cases.

What part of being "STATELESS" do you not understand. If a person is stateless, it is quite obvious that this person cannot get another citizenship. If this person qualifies for another citizenship, it technically means he/she is NOT stateless.

 

[Natan]

They cant take your citizenship if you are not eligible for any other country citizenship. If you are, they can. This law would be enforced in very very rare situation though such as terrorism or high profile cases.

C-24's citizenship revocation powers bears repeating:

1. Citizenship may be revoked from any dual citizen who is convicted of certain criminal acts.

2. Said conviction may occur anywhere in the world, the determination of the validity of the conviction at the sole discretion of the Ministry.

3. A citizen's status as a dual citizen is determined by the Ministry.

4. A person who would be rendered stateless by loss of Canadian citizenship may still have their citizenship revoked if the Ministry asserts that said citizen may obtain citizenship from any other country.

5. The citizen must prove, to the Ministry's satisfaction, that they do not possess, and cannot obtain, citizenship from any other country.

6. Judicial review is only available if the Ministry grants permission for the citizen to seek redress in the courts.

7. The Ministry is headed by a politician.

 

[screech339]

C-24's citizenship revocation powers bears repeating:

1. Citizenship may be revoked from any dual citizen who is convicted of certain criminal acts.
(Terrorism or Treason)

2. Said conviction may occur anywhere in the world, the determination of the validity of the conviction at the sole discretion of the Ministry.
(Only if conviction meets Canadian Standard of Law...would come to same conclusion of guilty using same evidences presented in foreign court in according to Canada's Law)

3. A citizen's status as a dual citizen is determined by the Ministry.
(Citizen can apply for any foreign citizenship if they qualified...usually by descent. Anyone can determine that, even a ministry. Just look at the country's citizenship laws)

4. A person who would be rendered stateless by loss of Canadian citizenship may still have their citizenship revoked if the Ministry asserts that said citizen may obtain citizenship from any other country.
(If a person can get another citizenship, technically the person is never stateless in the first place)

5. The citizen must prove, to the Ministry's satisfaction, that they do not possess, and cannot obtain, citizenship from any other country.
(goes back to point 4. A person is never stateless unless proven otherwise)

6. Judicial review is only available if the Ministry grants permission for the citizen to seek redress in the courts.
(Judicial Review are usually given when there is a major mistake on CIC's part in revoking citizenship)

7. The Ministry is headed by a politician.
(Of course, A ministry is head by a politician. A ministry is elected by the people. Take a look the cabinet. Full of Ministries elected by the people)

 

[dpenabill]

C-24's citizenship revocation powers bears repeating:


6. Judicial review is only available if the Ministry grants permission for the citizen to seek redress in the courts.

NOT true.

It is up to the courts whether to grant leave to appeal.

Establishing sufficient grounds to obtain leave to appeal is actually one of the lower bars there is in the judicial process.

While there is a slippery slope on the backside of what constitutes terrorism, relative to zealous activism involving civil disobedience, any suggestion that ordinary, run-of-the-mill immigrants are at risk for an arbitrary or capricious abuse of authority to revoke their citizenship is well, well beyond hyperbolic.

Moreover, there is some doubt as to whether the procedures for revocation will withstand constitutional review.

The grounds, it seems to me, are likely to withstand constitutional review. But the procedure is another matter.

 

[dpenabill]

NOT true.

It is up to the courts whether to grant leave to appeal.

Establishing sufficient grounds to obtain leave to appeal is actually one of the lower bars there is in the judicial process.

While there is a slippery slope on the backside of what constitutes terrorism, relative to zealous activism involving civil disobedience, any suggestion that ordinary, run-of-the-mill immigrants are at risk for an arbitrary or capricious abuse of authority to revoke their citizenship is well, well beyond hyperbolic.

Moreover, there is some doubt as to whether the procedures for revocation will withstand constitutional review.

The grounds, it seems to me, are likely to withstand constitutional review. But the procedure is another matter.

Qualification/clarification: actually, I am not at all sure about how the Supreme Court will respond to grounds to revoke citizenship based on acts committed while a citizen.

The procedural elements of the SCCA, regarding revocation, raise some more or less obvious concerns. That aspect is obvious.

But the underlying issue raised by Galati in his challenge remains to be decided . . . even if the ruling by then Federal Court Justice Rennie is in the ballpark substantively, it is difficult to predict how this issue will be ultimately decided. Can Parliament take away legitimate ly obtained citizenship? To my view this is a tough question, a big question, and perhaps a question to be determined on principles and law I am and many others are not all that familiar with.

 

[Martin29]

So now we need Police clearance certificate if we lived more than 6 months(cumulative) in another country during last 4 years.

 

[DND]

C-24's citizenship revocation powers bears repeating:

1. Citizenship may be revoked from any dual citizen who is convicted of certain criminal acts.
(Terrorism or Treason)

2. Said conviction may occur anywhere in the world, the determination of the validity of the conviction at the sole discretion of the Ministry.
(Only if conviction meets Canadian Standard of Law...would come to same conclusion of guilty using same evidences presented in foreign court in according to Canada's Law)

3. A citizen's status as a dual citizen is determined by the Ministry.
(Citizen can apply for any foreign citizenship if they qualified...usually by descent. Anyone can determine that, even a ministry. Just look at the country's citizenship laws)

4. A person who would be rendered stateless by loss of Canadian citizenship may still have their citizenship revoked if the Ministry asserts that said citizen may obtain citizenship from any other country.
(If a person can get another citizenship, technically the person is never stateless in the first place)

5. The citizen must prove, to the Ministry's satisfaction, that they do not possess, and cannot obtain, citizenship from any other country.
(goes back to point 4. A person is never stateless unless proven otherwise)

6. Judicial review is only available if the Ministry grants permission for the citizen to seek redress in the courts.
(Judicial Review are usually given when there is a major mistake on CIC's part in revoking citizenship)

7. The Ministry is headed by a politician.
(Of course, A ministry is head by a politician. A ministry is elected by the people. Take a look the cabinet. Full of Ministries elected by the people)

Let me understand how it goes

Suppose we have a person who is eligible for say French citizenship
The said person, and his friend decide to go to Syria and join ISIS
After a while they return to Canada

They both prosecuted for terrorism
his friend, who happens to be only Canadian citizen, goes to jail for life
The said person loses his Canadian citizenship, and expelled "back" to France?

So we let french government deal with him?
What if France enacts the same rule and will beat us to it. I.e. cancelling his French citizenship faster then we can cancel his Canadian? Now he is our problem again?

Is my understanding of the new rule correct?

 

[screech339]

Let me understand how it goes

Suppose we have a person who is eligible for say French citizenship
The said person, and his friend decide to go to Syria and join ISIS
After a while they return to Canada

They both prosecuted for terrorism
his friend, who happens to be only Canadian citizen, goes to jail for life
The said person loses his Canadian citizenship, and expelled "back" to France?

So we let french government deal with him?
What if France enacts the same rule and will beat us to it. I.e. cancelling his French citizenship faster then we can cancel his Canadian? Now he is our problem again?

Is my understanding of the new rule correct?

No difference if the dual citizen formally renounce all other citizenships except Canadian before joining ISIS. He/she will still be our problem.

If France beat us to it, it is our problem.