Topic: "Proposed law would strip Canadian citizenship for acts of war"

[milnews.ca]

MOD NOTE:  I'm keeping this separate from the Khadr thread so this one can be discussed/debated on the merits (or lack thereof) of the bill itself.

A Conservative MP wants to reward permanent residents serving in the Canadian Armed Forces with faster citizenship and revoke the citizenship of people who engage in acts of war against Canada.

“Canadian citizenship is an honour and a privilege,” said Devinder Shory, who represents Calgary Northeast, in a press release. “Those who put themselves on the front lines for Canada deserve to be acknowledged, while those who repudiate their citizenship by committing violent acts against Canada’s armed forces should not be able to retain it.”

Shory’s private members bill was debated in the House of Commons on Tuesday.

Bill C-425 would allow permanent residents who have signed a minimum three-year contract with the Canadian Forces to gain citizenship one year earlier than normal.

While citizenship is generally a requirement to join the Canadian Forces, permanent residents can receive a citizenship waiver if they have specific skill sets needed.

The second, and more contentious part of the bill, would see people stripped of Canadian citizenship if they fight against the Canadian Armed Forces. The provision would apply to dual citizens, citizens who are also a legal resident of another country or permanent residents of Canada who have applied for citizenship.

Shory commissioned a poll last year which suggested 80 per cent of Canadians would like to see citizenship be revoked in such cases ....

Postmedia News, 29 Jan 13


Summary:  C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces) - draft text of bill as is right now attached (4 page PDF)

[armourmike]

It's an interesting idea. There are countries that offer something similar, like the French Foreign Legion (Français par le sang versé) and a few smaller nations who offer an accelerated citizenship process for mbrs of their forces. In the case of Canada, its hard to see an obvious benefit for the Forces as a whole, but it is an attractive bonus for some soldiers. It would be worth looking into if there is a real benefit to Canada.

As for removing the citizenship of those who fight against the CF, its a slippery slope. Who decides what constitutes fighting against the CF is? Is it supplying weapons, financially backing the enemy, or literally fighting the CF? It could lead to a host of other changes to who can be a citizen. Like it says in the linked article, it would very hard to implement in reality. Is it worth the time and money?

[cupper]

The US has something similar for non citizens that serve as well.

Also, there have been a couple of cases where naturalized citizens have had their citizenship revoked as a result of criminal convictions.

[ModlrMike]

I support rewarding those who are willing to contribute to Canada at the cost of their lives.

On the flip side, what happens to native born Canadians as opposed to naturalized ones? From what I can see, the bill does not provide the opportunity to declare someone stateless.

[milnews.ca]

.... Who decides what constitutes fighting against the CF is? Is it supplying weapons, financially backing the enemy, or literally fighting the CF? ....

Good point - it's not detailed in the current draft of the Bill itself right now.  I'm hoping that would be hashed out during Committee work if it goes that far.

Also, for those interested, here's the House of Commons discussion on the bill from yesterday.

[gcclarke]

The US has something similar for non citizens that serve as well.

Also, there have been a couple of cases where naturalized citizens have had their citizenship revoked as a result of criminal convictions.

Not really. The only thing for which a citizen (of any stripe) can be stripped of their citizenship is fraud in relation to either their citizenship application, or the application which lead to them becoming a permanent resident prior to citizenship. There is no such provision under the citizenship act for stripping people of their citizenship for any crimes committed after they legally became citizens.

Nor, IMHO, should there be.

[Colin P]

Direct combat against Canadian troops overseas in a openly declared mission would be the only one I am comfortable with. Otherwise the slope gets slippery.

[gcclarke]

I'm perfectly happy with the current mandatory sentence of life in prison for high treason.

[Nemo888]

I prefer hanging for high treason.

[cupper]

Not really. The only thing for which a citizen (of any stripe) can be stripped of their citizenship is fraud in relation to either their citizenship application, or the application which lead to them becoming a permanent resident prior to citizenship. There is no such provision under the citizenship act for stripping people of their citizenship for any crimes committed after they legally became citizens.

Nor, IMHO, should there be.

Here is the pertinent information from USCIS

http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartL.html

Chapter 2: Grounds for Revocation of Naturalization

In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on the following grounds:

A. Person Procures Naturalization Illegally

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if he or she procured naturalization illegally. Procuring naturalization illegally simply means that the person was not eligible for naturalization in the first place. Accordingly, any eligibility requirement for naturalization that was not met can form the basis for an action to revoke the naturalization of a person. This includes the requirements of residence, physical presence, lawful admission for permanent residence, good moral character, and attachment to the U.S. Constitution.[1]

Discovery that a person failed to comply with any of the requirements for naturalization at the time the person became a U.S. citizen renders his or her naturalization illegally procured. This applies even if the person is innocent of any willful deception or misrepresentation.[2]


B. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation[3]

1. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if there is deliberate deceit on the part of the person in misrepresenting or failing to disclose a material fact or facts on his or her naturalization application and subsequent examination.

In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on this basis if:

    The naturalized U.S. citizen misrepresented or concealed some fact;

    The misrepresentation or concealment was willful;

    The misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material; and

    The naturalized U.S. citizen procured citizenship as a result of the misrepresentation or concealment.[4]


This ground of revocation includes omissions as well as affirmative misrepresentations. The misrepresentations can be oral testimony provided during the naturalization interview or can include information contained on the application submitted by the applicant. The courts determine whether the misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material. The test for materiality is whether the misrepresentations or concealment had a tendency to affect the decision. It is not necessary that the information, if disclosed, would have precluded naturalization.[5]


2. Membership or Affiliation with Certain Organizations

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of his or her naturalization.[6] In general, a person who is involved with such organizations cannot establish the naturalization requirements of having an attachment to the Constitution and of being well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.[7]

The fact that a person becomes involved with such an organization within five years after the date of naturalization is prima facie evidence that he or she concealed or willfully misrepresented material evidence that would have prevented the person’s naturalization.


C. Other than Honorable Discharge before Five Years of Honorable Service after Naturalization

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if:

    The person became a United States citizen through naturalization on the basis of honorable service in the U.S. armed forces;[8]

    The person subsequently separates from the U.S. armed forces under other than honorable conditions; and

    The other than honorable discharge occurs before the person has served honorably for a period or periods aggregating at least five years.[9]

Further from FindLaw: http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/can-your-u-s-citizenship-be-revoked-.html

Grounds for Denaturalization

Falsification or Concealment of Relevant Facts: You must be absolutely truthful when filling out paperwork and answering interview questions related to the naturalization application process. Even if the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) fails to recognize any lies or ommissions at first, the agency may file a denaturalization action against you after citizenship has been granted. Examples include failure to disclose criminal activities or lying about one's real name or identity.
   
Refusal to Testify Before Congress: You may not refuse to testify before a U.S. congressional committee whose job it is to investigate your alleged involvement in subversive acts, such as those intended to harm U.S. officials or overthrow the U.S. government. This requirement to testify in order to maintain citizenship status expires after 10 years.
   
Membership in Subversive Groups: Your citizenship may be revoked if the U.S. government can prove that you joined a subversive organization within five years of becoming a naturalized citizen. Membership in such organizations is considered a violation of the oath of U.S. allegiance. Examples include the Nazi Party and Al Qaeda.

Dishonorable Military Discharge: Since you may become a naturalized U.S. citizen by virtue of serving in the U.S. military, your citizenship may be revoked if you are dishonorably discharged before serving five years. Reasons for dishonorable discharge, which must follow a general court-martial, include desertion and sexual assault.


The cases I referred to were ones where the person was charged with an offense during the naturalization process, but no action was taken to stop the process. Later they were convicted of another crime and the prior charge was used as grounds for denaturalization as it was deemed that they had committed fraud during the naturalization process, or it was taken as prima facia evidence that they were not of good moral character.

[cupper]

This interestingly enough mirrors efforts that have been made to pass bills in the US Congress to strip Citizenship after the Al Awlaki case.

[yakherder]

Regarding offering early citizenship to residents serving in the CF:

I don't suppose this implies that they intend to actually start allowing residents to join?  I live in Quebec despite still having about a year left in the U.S. Army National Guard.  The second I get my letter of release, I'd like to go into the Canadian Forces.  I just received my residency, however, and although theoretically a resident can join if there is enough demand for their skills, when I talked to a recruiter a few months back I was told that there currently aren't any positions within the CF for which there is a high enough demand that they'd be authorized to give me a citizenship waiver.  In other words, one must be a Canadian citizen in order to join.

As for the stripping of citizenship, if someone is waging acts of war on Canada, I think I'd rather bring them back and prosecute them here than turn them over to their home country, which might just release them so they can continue waging acts of war.  I have no sympathy for them, but I don't see a significant benefit to stripping them of citizenship.  My first choice would be to put them down before it ever got to that, but I suppose you can't always come up with an excuse to shoot the people who need to be shot without breaking the rules.

[ballz]

Regarding offering early citizenship to residents serving in the CF:

I don't suppose this implies that they intend to actually start allowing residents to join?  I live in Quebec despite still having about a year left in the U.S. Army National Guard.  The second I get my letter of release, I'd like to go into the Canadian Forces.  I just received my residency, however, and although theoretically a resident can join if there is enough demand for their skills, when I talked to a recruiter a few months back I was told that there currently aren't any positions within the CF for which there is a high enough demand that they'd be authorized to give me a citizenship waiver.  In other words, one must be a Canadian citizen in order to join.

I am also wondering about that part. Don't you need to be a Canadian citizen to join? How is one supposed to serve in order to obtain citizenship faster under the current requirements.

[-Skeletor-]

Just for sake of argument and citizenship was revoked for those who fight against Canada..

What happens to the person who is now sans citizenship?  They get sent off to any country that will take them?

As for the argument saying they should be sent back to their home country;  what if they are born and raised in Canada?  Canada would be their home country. 

Would their be any repercussions for their immediate family/dependents?

[cupper]

Just for sake of argument and citizenship was revoked for those who fight against Canada..

What happens to the person who is now sans citizenship?  They get sent off to any country that will take them?

As for the argument saying they should be sent back to their home country;  what if they are born and raised in Canada?  Canada would be their home country. 

Would their be any repercussions for their immediate family/dependents?

I think if this ever got to the Supreme Court the outcome would be that naturalized citizens would get stripped and could be deported back to their home country. Persons born in Canada could not have their citizenship revoked. The problem, which you pointed out, is what happens when their country of origin won't take them back.

We may need to look at building that supermax prison in the middle of the high arctic - Guantanamo North.

As for repercussions for family and dependents, it would most likely end up the way the US does in their cases, which for the most part becomes a case by case situation. The majority would be deported if they gained citizenship as a result of the person being stripped. Dependents who had citizenship independent of the person in question would likely be able keep it (possibly though a court challenge). Dependents born in the country would remain citizens.

[Colin P]

A nice minimum security prison say 150m NW of Churchill?

[recceguy]

what happens when their country of origin won't take them back.

 They can live at the airport http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal

[gun runner]

There are soldiers in our forces who are not citizens of our nation. They come from other Commonwealth countries(the only other way people can serve in a Commonwealth Armed Service), and are usually in the process of obtaining citizenship. Those members of our forces that are born citizens of Canada, and choose to fight against our forces, if not outright killed in action, can be tried for that action. I am not a lawyer, and I do not have all the answers. The Minimum security facility NW of Churchill is a great idea, and won't cost but a few hundred to build, just a good small boat! I am sure that this was the jist of this thread, "what would persons stripped of their Canadian citizenship for acts of war against Canada do?". My answer is who cares, just as long as they don't do it here. Ubique

[cupper]

I was thinking more like this:

http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Ottawa,+ON,+Canada&daddr=74.324802,+-98.647041&hl=en&sll=74.307725,-98.669586&sspn=0.106602,0.517044&oq=Ottawa&t=h&mra=ls&z=3

Extra bonus, if global warming accelerates, they won't be able to walk on the ice to the mainland.

[milnews.ca]

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said Wednesday the government should "consider" expanding a Tory MP's bill to strip Canadian citizenship from those who commit acts of terrorism.

He was speaking after confirmation Tuesday that a Lebanese-Canadian dual national was involved in the 2012 bombing of Israeli tourists in Bulgaria.

( .... )

"I think that perhaps we should consider working with Shory to broaden the scope of his bill to include not just acts of war against Canada by Canadian citizens, but perhaps we should also consider acts of terrorism," Kenney said.

"Canadian citizenship is predicated on loyalty to this country and I cannot think of a more obvious act of renouncing one’s sense of loyalty than going and committing acts of terror," he said.

"Right now under the current Canadian law we have no power to revoke or to deem renunciation of citizenship on the part of a dual citizen terrorist of this nature, although every other western democracy I’ve studied does have a similar power to revoke citizenship effectively from dual citizens who are terrorists," the immigration minister said. "So I think we should study the international precedence and perhaps look at expanding Mr. Shory’s private member’s bill." ....

CBC.ca, 6 Feb 13

[tomahawk6]

Taking a terrorists's citizenship is much more humane than killing them via predator strike.

[milnews.ca]

Bump with the latest - bill passes Second reading (here's who voted which way), and moves to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for further study

[milnews.ca]

The latest in committee:

A private member's bill that would strip citizenship from dual-nationals accused of treason hit roadblocks Tuesday, as expected.

Before the House committee on immigration, Tory MP Devinder Shory's Bill-425 encountered many of the challenges - constitutional and otherwise - legal experts had anticipated.

The bill proposes to remove citizenship from dual citizens who have "engaged in acts of war against the Canadian Forces" and also to expedite the citizenship process for permanent residents who've enlisted in the military.

Shory told the committee the catalyst for the bill was his belief Canadian citizenship is a privilege, not an inalienable right. Shory's conviction, however, may be at odds with the Constitution.

Opposition MPs questioned the "two-tier" citizenship system the bill would create and wondered how that would jive with Canada's being a signatory to the Geneva Convention, which dictates no person should be rendered stateless.

Also questioned was the wording of the bill, which at least one expert witness - Col. Michael Gibson of National Defence - said was "problematic."

Gibson said the term "acts of war" has not been part of the Canadian military or legal vernacular for about half a century. It's been replaced with "armed conflict" -- the term Gibson suggested using in the bill for the purposes of clarity and specificity ....

QMI/Sun Media, 20 Mar 13