US-Canadian citizenship

[NikLR 13,227]

Also interesting to read the comments section. In honesty, most of them make me sad.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

I agree. I just read through them myself and to be honest, the attitudes don't fall far from many I've read about immigration to the USA by the hard core republicans

[NikLR 13,227]

On some aspects I cannot blame them. People abuse the right. But it's the internet and many do not think through thoroughly their statements before blurting them out for the world to see.

It will be interesting to see where this bill ends up when it's all said and done though.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

I somewhat agree with the bill to an extent. However, I do see where it draws alarm to some. My question about it is could something happen in this situation: a naturalized Canadian has a close family member (father, sister, etc) who becomes a known terrorist. The citizen may not be involved him/herself. But would suspicion be cause to possibly revoke?

[NikLR 13,227]

There are two main things I'd change about the bill.

1)it says people who are eligible to take other nationalities... well in a year I am in the USA, but that doesn't mean Im going to. There are thousands of Canadians (if not 10s of thousands) who may unknowingly or deliberately not be taking citizenship from another country despite being eligible to do so. Being eligible to obtain other citizenship shouldn't be a factor. I see why it is, but even as per the UN you can't remove citizenship when someone doesn't have another. With this clause it seems like they want to force you to take other citizenship just to revoke the Canadian one. I do hope I'm reading it wrong though.

2)there should be a fair trial under a judge, not an immigration minister, to determine revocation. Innocent until proven guilty. Suspicion alone should not be cause to revoke.

Obviously this bill is aimed at the people who are abusing immigration in Canada but it also affects people like us who have moved to be with a loved one in countries that are quite peaceful to Canada.

But the main thing for the OP is that becoming an LPR does not affect his Canadian citizenship.

Edited July 12, 2015 by NLR

[newacct 688]

By the way, Bill C-24 is not a bill anymore. It was passed back in 2014. Provisions of the bill came into force in several stages. The revocation provision came into force on May 28, 2015. The last part of the bill (including new naturalization requirements) came into force on June 11, 2015, and so the entire bill is now in force.

You can read the text of the bill here, and the legislative summary here. There are many misconceptions about the bill. The bill does not say "people who are eligible to take other nationalities". You must be a dual national for them to revoke your citizenship under the new revocation provisions; in other words, they cannot do it if it would make you stateless. This is entirely due to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, which Canada is a party to, which says the country cannot revoke nationality (other than due to fraud, etc. in which case the person never validly had nationality) if it would make the person stateless. Under the new law, the burden of proof is on the person to show that he does not have any of the nationalities that the government suspects he might have.

I guess some people might say "people who are eligible to take other nationalities" because of common misconceptions about nationality. Who has a country's nationality is solely determined by that country's law. But some people think that as long as they haven't "claimed" nationality by descent, that they don't have it, and so they say they are "eligible". So you will often hear stuff like if your grandparent or great-grandparent is a German or Italian or whatever, that you are "eligible" for that nationality, but if you look at the laws of those countries, they just say that if a child is born to a national of that country, then the child has that nationality. What is really happening in a case like this is that, legally, the persons's parent and grandparent, etc., was a German citizen by descent from birth, automatically, and involuntarily, even though this parent or grandparent may have been born in the US, never "claimed" or "asserted" or even wanted that citizenship, and thus the person himself is also a German citizen from birth, automatically and involuntarily. The person might think that by getting proof of German citizenship, they are "applying for" German citizenship that they didn't have before, but legally they already had it all along. So such a person would be a dual national, and can have their Canadian citizenship revoked according to the provisions, even though they might think that they are not a dual national, and only "eligible" for another nationality.

One valid compaint about the new revocation provisions is that, although most of them relate to being convicted of certain offenses in Canadian law, the one for terrorism says convicted of certain offenses in Canadian law, "or an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute a terrorism offence as defined in that section". This is the most worrisome because all it requires is that you be convicted and sentenced in a foreign court, of an offense which would correspond to a terrorism offense in Canada, but without any stipulation about whether the conviction is reasonable or fair. It doesn't say you have to be guilty (as judged by a Canadian) of a terrorism offense, only that you have been convicted of it by a foreign court. As we know, many governments in e.g. Syria, Egypt, and many others, often round up people as "terrorists" and put them in show trials that are a legal joke.

[VeeNDee 44]

Also interesting to read the comments section. In honesty, most of them make me sad.

Sigh, I really wish I hadn't read most of those comments.

[NikLR 13,227]

You didn't explain eligible for other nationality anymore than I thought it could be, but hoped it wouldn't be. It only clarifies for people like me who are only solely Canadian.

[newacct 688]

You didn't explain eligible for other nationality anymore than I thought it could be, but hoped it wouldn't be. It only clarifies for people like me who are only solely Canadian.

To put it simply, "eligibility" has nothing to do with it. It only matters whether you have another nationality or not.

[NikLR 13,227]

Yes I understand.

I also understand why it's worded to the public the way it is as well.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Also interesting to read the comments section. In honesty, most of them make me sad.

I'd like to see how quickly their tune would change if they fell in love with someone from another country and decided to live in that other country. I would never expect my wife to give up her Canadian citizenship simply because she married me and moved to the states, that's ridiculous. Nor would I expect anyone from the US to do it either.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Teddy B

[NikLR 13,227]

I don't think most people think outside their bubble until forced to do so.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I don't think most people think outside their bubble until forced to do so.

True

[Transborderwife 4,666]

Seeing as the vast majority of people seem to believe that you marry someone and assume your spouses citizenship it doesn't take much.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Seeing as the vast majority of people seem to believe that you marry someone and assume your spouses citizenship it doesn't take much.

If I had a dollar for every time someone said that to me or my wife.......................

Edited because I've got a spelling deficit today, lol.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Teddy B