Can we really wash our hands of extremist dual nationals?

Konrad Yakabuski on C-24’s proposed revocation measures for terrorism-related crimes, calling for serious debate on the implications, given recent US and UK revelations regarding US drone strikes on former UK citizens whose citizenship was revoked. See also Chris Selley’s Actually, my citizenship is a right | National Post.

Will be interesting to see if the debate within Committee focuses on the long-standing principle since Diefenbaker that a citizen is a citizen, whether born in Canada or naturalized, or more on due process and rule of law in any referrals to the Federal Court seeking revocation.

Still, C-24 is not perfect. Its proposal to strip dual nationals convicted of terror-related crimes of their Canadian citizenship warrants serious scrutiny in light of recent revelations by the British news media. If the intent is to ease CIA drone strikes, or the extradition to the United States of terrorist suspects living abroad, MPs should think long and hard about what that means for Canada.

Mr. Alexander has said he is “confident” that many of the 130 Canadians believed to be fighting with extremist groups abroad are dual nationals. Revoking their citizenship while they’re outside the country could prevent them from ever returning to Canada. This country would effectively absolve itself of their fate, even though some of them may have been born here…

Mr. Alexander has insisted that “the courts will play a very important role” in the process of revoking the Canadian citizenship of a dual national convicted of terrorism. That’s an improvement over the British system, where most of the power lies with the Home Secretary. But is it enough? The Commons citizenship committee needs to ask Mr. Alexander some tough questions.

Can we really wash our hands of extremist dual nationals? – The Globe and Mail

Or, given the “shopping for votes” culture, opposition parties focus more on fee increases and increased residency requirements.