Originally Posted by MarylandNed (Post 11304276)

It's impossible for him to have been stateless at birth. If not Canadian at birth, he was a citizen of India by descent through his father (he was born before Indian citizenship could be obtained by descent through the mother).

Originally Posted by Steve_ (Post 11304736)

But is it automatic or does he have to claim it? There was a case in the UK where they removed the British citizenship of a guy they said was a terrorist, because the Home Office claimed he was able to obtain Iraqi citizenship (it's illegal to make someone stateless in British law), however the Supreme Court ruled that was irrelevant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/wo...questions.html

Originally Posted by Steve_ (Post 11304729)

This annoys me because I always think it's stupid when they start talking about deporting people who committed crime in Canada, who grew up in Canada. Like that Vietnamese kid who was a gang member in Calgary who had lived in Canada since he was three.

If they grew up here, doesn't that make them our problem? Why should this guy be exiled to India? Getting increasingly tired of the "CBSA Most Wanted" posters and most of the people on those posters have lived in Canada since they were children and this guy was actually born here!

One could say that Canada is a training ground for criminals who get sent off to foreign countries, just as easily.

Removal of citizenship should not be equated (or ever be) a penalty for any criminal offence (except fraud in getting it), however heinous the crime might be. People aren't disposable and shouldn't be shipped off to a foreign country, essentially what they're talking about doing here is what Britain used to do to convicts shipped off to Tasmania.

Canada is particularly bad for it too, because if a person cannot be removed, (as in this case, India says he's not Indian) then they can end up in detention indefinitely. In the US, they have to release them if removal is impossible.

Man With No Name | National Post

Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian (Post 11305382)

While I understand your views Canada is applying the law as it currently stands regardless of if we agree or disagree. Yes this may appear draconian to some but until the laws are changed this is what Canada can legally do.
So here is another scenario that sometimes plays out.
A UK family moves over here with their 3 year old child as PRs. They live here for some 20 odd years but never take out Canadian citizenship. So the now 23 yr old child starts committing a string of criminal offences which results in them receiving a 9 month jail sentence. That person can now be DEPORTED back to the UK. Harsh to some but others will say tough they should have got their child Canadian citizenship then they would not be facing a deportation order.
Canada doesn't indefinitely detain persons.
That National Post article is dealing with a person who uses multiple names and will not co-operate with CBSA officials. As his true identity cannot be made then yes they are detaining him and the law allows that. This IS NOT happening every day.
So should we have a time limit on who we can legally deport based on how long they have spent in Canada. There are thousands who have gone underground that have deportation orders against them so should they be rewarded if they manage to evade capture as they have been in Canada say for over 20 years?
Its not a perfect system I agree but its a lot better than some countries have where this type of person might never be seen again.

Originally Posted by MarylandNed (Post 11305342)

It's automatic if the father was an Indian citizen by birth.

Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian (Post 11305382)

While I understand your views Canada is applying the law as it currently stands regardless of if we agree or disagree. Yes this may appear draconian to some but until the laws are changed this is what Canada can legally do.

Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian (Post 11306381)

Sure some will say well they came here as a kid as a PR and have lived all of their life in Canada why should we now deport them. The short answer to that is the law allows it and until that law is changed by pressure from the public then it will happen rightly or wrongly.
Other countries can also deport their PRs.

Originally Posted by Steve_ (Post 11305939)

So why are the Indians refusing to recognize him as an Indian citizen then? Doesn't make sense. Or are they saying that because he is Canadian, he can't be Indian as you can't be a dual-citizen? Now there's an interesting catch-22.

Originally Posted by Steve_ (Post 11307333)

It sends a very poor message about Canada - "Immigrate to Canada - when your kids grow up to be criminals, we'll deport them."

True and thats why the law needs to be changed to avoid this


Silly comparison - the death penalty is imposed after a trial, we were talking about immigration detention. In Canada it can continue indefinitely, in the US it cannot.

I was talking in general terms about the difference between the US and Canada in cases involving deportation. A PR convicted of murder in the US could face the death penalty but wouldn't in Canada. It appears that a PR in Canada could be detained indefinitely if their identity cannot be established and a travel document obtained whereas it appears the US has a time limit. To me thats a fair trade off.

I'm not talking about people who've been here a short time, I'm talking about people who grew up here. If they arrived as young children they shouldn't be deported imo.

But there will be those saying its not fair on those who arrived as kids from shithole countries and we are now deporting them don't they deserve a chance?



Already did awhile ago, doesn't change my opinion, the CPA seems to be equating removal with punishment for a crime, which is wrong and the other organizations quoted seem to be using examples of adults who immigrated, not children.

I think there should be some age limit where sections 34-37 do not apply, say to people who arrived before the age of 14.
So that kid is now 22 and has taken up the jihad cause in Canada or joined the Hells Angels and is now wreaking havoc in Canada. I haven't heard of Canada deporting anyone under section 34 or 35 where this applies only under 36 or 37.

You shouldn't be able to socialize someone, they become a criminal and then ship them off to a country they are barely familiar with. In many cases these people have no family in the country they are originally from, so the chances of rehabilitation are basically nil.
Then the law needs to be changed.

The statistics in that CIC backgrounder are misleading - how many naturalized people are convicted of crimes that would have made them subject to removal if they hadn't naturalized, I wonder.

Look at the stupid comment from this lawyer:



What she seems to saying is oh dear, what a shame we can't ship Canadians abroad as well!

Originally Posted by FlyingDutchman6666 (Post 11308149)

Does Canada deport to Cuba?

Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian (Post 11303973)

Now the question is legally is he a Canadian citizen or not bearing in mind that the Canadian passport issued to him was believed to have been issued in error should the Federal Court rule he is not legally a Canadian citizen.

....

If the facts are as our government says they are, he is indeed an Indian citizen, though they are refusing to recognize him as such. Under Indian law, persons born outside India on or after 26 January 1950 but before 10 December 1992 are citizens of India by descent if their father was a citizen of India at the time of their birth.