Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 113 of 113

Thread: First dual citizen loses Canadian citizenship

  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jizzaldo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Nothing to be debated? Apparently there clearly is. Have you not read this thread? Have you not read a newspaper in the last few weeks? Dual citizenship causes many problems such as resources wasted on "citizens" who are living abroad and use our social services when it is convenient. At a cost to all canadians who are living here and paying into the system. I still haven't said anything about terrorists, yet you keep bringing it up as if I did. As far as citizenship of terrorists, you're correct, they don't give a **** about any type of citizenship.
    Many countries in the world allow you to live there for extended periods of time without getting a citizenship. Do you think a Canadian citizen, who only has Canadian citizenship and nothing else, should still get the "benefits" you speak of (embassy services and extraction in emergency) when living abroad?

    I fail to see a difference between a sole Canadian citizen and a dual Canadian citizen living abroad. So perhaps the issue you have is that we offer services to Canadians overseas in general? Do you think we should refuse to rescue Canadians, or shut down embassies?

    The issue of Lebanese-Canadians being extracted from Lebanon during the war was mentioned, but there were also sole-Canadian citizenship people living there who were extracted as well. Was that wrong?

    There isn't any consistency in what you are saying. You're trying to prove there is some difference between a sole and dual citizenship Canadian, but there isn't one.


    So you can be a Canadian and not pay your fair share? Yeah, pretty much my point. Thanks for that.
    Taxes are filed based on country and province of residency. If you live in Canada, you pay Canadian taxes. If you live abroad, you pay their taxes. Only the Americans make expats continue paying taxes.
    As far as living abroad for an extended period without a grant of citizenship from the country being occupied. I really don't know what the solution would be at this point.

    Actually, I've been extremely consistent.

    As far as rescuing citizens, I believe we should not rescue citizens who are dual citizens living in their 2nd country. And I don't believe we should rescue any Canadians whatsoever who have traveled to countries in which the government has issued a travel advisory.

    So if I've lived in another country for 20 years, was granted citizenship of said country, yet haven't paid taxes during this span, end up developing cancer, do you believe it is fair for the tax payers of Canada to have to foot the medical bills for this "citizen"?
    Let's say you legally lived in the U.K. for 20 years without being a U.K. citizen. During that time you would have paid their Goods & Services Taxes on just about everything you bought, would have contributed to the economy, maybe bought a house, a car, had kids etc. You would have almost certainly been expected to register for their national health system.
    You decide to take out your citizenship there. I should imagine little might change except you would be able to get an old age pension from there for the years you are a citizen and you would probably be able to vote in the national elections.
    I think some of your reasoning comes from people who take advantage of dual citizenship when it suits them. The government no doubt is trying to fill some of these loopholes.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  2. #102

    Default

    There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of dual citizenship when such an advantage pops up.

    I'll repeat that.

    There is nothing wrong with taking advantage of dual citizenship when such an advantage pops up.

  3. #103
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Case being challenged. Expect this to go to the Supreme Court and be overturned just like all of harper's other blatantly unconstitutional bad decisions.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...347/story.html

    Unconstitutional on the grounds that:

    - Offers no avenue to challenge decisions, thus no opportunity for judicial review.

    - Violates fundamental principles of justice by imposing punishment retrospectively.

    - Is a cruel and unusual punishment as it will likely make him stateless (turns out Harper just claimed he was a "dual citizen", and Pakistan actually says they don't even recognize dual citizenship)

    - Violates human rights, as if he does manage to be sent to Pakistan he will likely be tortured or killed.

    FYI - The crime he was convicted of was "planning to build bombs", they actually had no plans of how to use them. The Judge, in sentencing, said that this particular individual renounced any terrorist sentiment, and that if it was anything except "terrorism-related matter" he would not have even gone to prison, but instead would have had community service.

    Basically this was a guy who talked to some other guys about maybe building some bombs, then backed off of it and renounced all of those ideas. As stated in court. By the Judge.

    Handing down the sentence in 2014, Judge Colin McKinnon said Ahmed had renounced his terrorist tendencies and would have been a good candidate for a non-custodial sentence had the offences not been terrorism-related and carried “an utterly deplorable stigma.”
    So, still think there is no problem with this?
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 30-09-2015 at 03:18 PM.

  4. #104

    Default

    The problem in all this is that the government and a portion of the population (minority or majority, doesn't matter) are whipping up hysteria.

    Godwin follows.

  5. #105

    Default

    ^most Canadians aren't getting hysterical about this, they are perfectly fine with what the government is saying. Its just a few, mostly left wingers, with knickers in a twist.

  6. #106
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^Any hysteria being whipped is over terrorism, but I really don't see it being a great political move for Harper. I think he's imagining that Canadians are more paranoid than they are. maybe as paranoid as he is.

    Unfortunately not enough care deeply about good government.

  7. #107
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    ^ The average voter wants more programs and infrastructure that cost less funded on lower taxes in a balanced budget. They want a diversified economy, but they don't want to spend money on expanding into other sectors. They want smooth and well-kept roads, but they don't want road construction. They want to leave the world better off for their children, but they don't want to drive less or pay more at the pump. And over all this, they REALLY want to make sure the scary brown women in cloaks don't come and ruin our culture, which by the way shouldn't cost us anything to promote, because that is a waste and who cares about culture anyways.

    No, the average person doesn't care about good government. The average person doesn't even know what good government is. They make emotional knee jerk decisions about things without doing any sort of critical thinking or research into the subject. Then, they broadcast their poorly informed opinions through our society like a plague.

    Democracy: can't live with it, can't live without it.

  8. #108

    Default Why revoking citizenship is silly

    Scenario 1: Middle eastern/Canadian dual citizen is accused of terrorism. Before we can strip them of their Canadian citizenship, their other citizenship is revoked. Due to international law, it is illegal for us to render them stateless, therefore they must remain Canadian. If we start revoking citizenship, then you can bet your butt that other, less considerate countries, will be quick to rubber stamp the revocation before we can.

    Scenario 2: Canadian/UK dual citizen is accused of terrorism in UK. The UK revokes their citizenship. we are forced to take back our citizen. Oh my, how the tables have turned. We are setting a disgusting precedent here, which could blow back in our faces.

    Revoking citizenship is, truthfully, pointless. If they're guilty of a crime, put them in prison. Not because it's right, but because the other options are worse.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  9. #109
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default Men deported without being convicted of a crime.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ed-to-pakistan

    Two men ACCUSED of plotting a terrorist attack have been deported. They were not given a chance to defend themselves in a court of law.

    Moreover, they are now free on the streets of Pakistan more angry than ever at western governments. They will have all the freedom in the world to carry out plots there.

    This is a human rights violation and a violation of the Canadian constitution. The officials that made the decision should be tried and jailed.

  10. #110

    Default

    They were not citizens, and as such definitely subject to deportation.

    In this case there is no problem with them out of the country.

    Everything I have said so far applies to the idiocy of expatriating citizens.

    But not in this case.

  11. #111
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    They were permanent residents, and as such had the right to a fair trial. This is punishment without due process, and thus a violation of their human rights.

  12. #112

    Default

    Gaming the system?

    Vancouver hospital sues foreign-born mother for $1m - BBC News

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44474648

  13. #113
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    8,291

    Default

    313 grand. Holeee. Then 1.2 mil. Stupid numbers. Who would or could pay it. Nobody. 3.13 grand would be high already. It would be reasonable for an uninsured birth. Jerks.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 17-06-2018 at 06:00 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •