FATCA Paris Meeting: Lee and Bopp: A Chance to Turn the Tide

2014/10/09 Leave a comment

Victoria Ferauge’s reporting on a FATCA meeting with American expatriates in Paris this week:

Bright and early Monday morning, Senator Mike Lee and superlawyer James Bopp, Jr. addressed a full house of frustrated and forlorn US citizens over at Reid Hall in Paris.  Some came in suits, some in jeans. There was a very young woman with blue streaks in her hair and men whose touches of gray were a testimonial to a lot of living.  There were lawyers, stay at home mothers, IT workers and artists.  A diverse group that was far more representative of the true face of Americans abroad than the usual caricatures of champagne-sipping yacht-owners living it up in Gay Paree.  It was coffee and croissants and a frank discussion that at times was fraught with emotion.

Senator Lee spoke first and he began with some anecdotes from the time when he was first elected to the Senate.  He’s a young man with a quiet and modest demeanour.  He recounted how in the very beginning he had moments where because of his youth and appearance he was taken for something other than a member of that august body, the US Senate, and how he finally had to quietly but firmly assert himself as the elected-by-the-people junior Senator from Utah.  He invited us to laugh with him and we did. But the funny stories took a very serious turn when he shared the lesson he drew from that experience: “We must assert what is rightfully ours,” he said, “if it is to have any meaning.”

US citizens wherever they live, he said, have constitutional rights that cannot be taken away by anyone.

The Franco-American Flophouse: Lee and Bopp: A Chance to Turn the Tide.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , , , ,

Should the Canadian government revoke the citizenship of dual-nationals who fight for ISIS?

2014/10/08 Leave a comment

Good CBC Radio interview with Raj Sharma, an immigration lawyer, who was scheduled to testify during the parliamentary hearings on Bill C-24 revisions to the Citizenship Act and revocation.

One of the better plain language explanations of the shortcomings of the Government’s approach:

Should the Canadian government revoke the citizenship of dual-nationals who fight for ISIS? – The 180 – CBC Player. (about 6 minutes)

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with

Winnipeg man could be test case for Canada’s latest tool in fight against terrorism: revoking citizenship

2014/10/06 Leave a comment

A likely test case given Hiva Mohammad Alizadeh, a dual Iranian-Canadian national, pleaded guilty in Canadian courts (Hiva Alizadeh — arrested in Project Samosa — pleads guilty to terror plot):

Both the NDP and Liberals oppose the legislation, known as C-24. In a June 25 letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair wrote that the case of Mohamed Fahmy, a Canadian-Egyptian Al Jazeera journalist imprisoned in Egypt, illustrated the dangers of the law’s reliance on the decisions of foreign courts.

John McCallum, the Liberal immigration critic, said he was also concerned that the judgments of foreign courts could influence Canada’s decision to revoke citizenship, arguing the term terrorism was used “extremely loosely” against government opponents in countries like Sri Lanka.

The safeguards built into the law are also weak, he said, and it creates two classes of Canadians — those who hold dual nationality and those who don’t. “We think a Canadian is a Canadian and we should not have two classes of Canadians, some of whom could be deported and have their citizenship taken away.”

Neither was he convinced that deporting terrorists was a sound national security strategy. “If you’re serious about stopping them from killing people, you want to put them in jail, you don’t want to deport them to a place where they could go on killing.”

In a recent interview, Chris Alexander, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, said the law “sends a very clear message already to those who have grown up here or immigrated here who think it’s just natural that they should be able to go as Canadian citizens with their Canadian passport off to a theatre of war like Syria and join a barbaric group like Daesh,” another name for ISIS.

“No one, however misguided, can be in any doubt now about whether that kind of move should be taken lightly. It shouldn’t be. It’s a serious crime,” he said. “Where there is a conviction and it’s a dual national, you will lose your citizenship.”

He would not comment on which or how many cases were under consideration, saying it was “early days” and procedures were still being put into place. “I hope there’s early action under this provision, but I can’t give you firm timelines,” he said.

But during a meeting Tuesday with U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Public Safety Minister Stephen Blaney “highlighted the Government of Canada’s determination to revoke citizenship from dual nationals found guilty of terrorism,” according to the Prime Minister’s Office.

Winnipeg man could be test case for Canada’s latest tool in fight against terrorism: revoking citizenship  

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with

Mo3 and the risky idealism of youth: Salutin | Toronto Star

2014/10/02 Leave a comment

Rick Salutin on the one-sided language and focus on revocation and similar measures, rather than helping families and communities on prevention:

But ensuring decent options isn’t a task that parents can take on alone. It’s for all of society, especially its leaders. And believe me, pious denunciations of evil at the UN, by leaders with their own hideous, ongoing records to be ashamed of, won’t cut it with the young. I have that on vivid recall.

This week an Alberta leader of Somali Canadians asked the Harper government to expand outreach programs for youth. Their only response was a promise to protect “law-abiding Canadian families” by stripping citizenship under their new law for “dual-nationals who engage in terrorism.”

Well, these are law-abiding Canadian families whose kids are at risk and any criminal acts, including treason, can be dealt with already. All revoking citizenship does is dehumanize its targets, since citizenship is a human right. Do we really want Stephen Harper or Chris Alexander to decide who counts as human and who to exclude as monsters? This is sheer incitement of more anger and alienation. I’m against revoking anyone’s citizenship but if you were going to do it for encouraging radical, violent behaviour, you’d start with these official, elected provocateurs.

Mo3 and the risky idealism of youth: Salutin | Toronto Star.

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with , ,

Adrienne Clarkson on the anguish of not belonging

2014/10/01 2 Comments

Adrienne Clarkson on citizenship in her Massey Lectures this fall. Worth reading and reflecting upon:

It was in attending public school that I truly felt a sense of place in this country. Still today I believe that a public education is the single most valuable institution that our society provides to help people belong. If we are going to continue to accommodate newcomers into society, we must continue to have well-funded public education—education paid for by the state, free for all citizens. This has been key to our success ever since our humble beginnings. Without public education, we cannot have a cohesive society, a society with shared values. Without public education, we cannot continue to fulfill the public good—that is, the internationalization and the continuation of our key notions and values from one generation to the next. We can do all of this only in a democratic structure, where all children are treated as equal, regardless of income. That is how people really learn to belong. That is what public education does. We want people who will take their place in our society, but that means we must make sure there are no barriers to inclusion for people who come here.

So belonging is essential to us in Canada. We select our immigrants with the idea that they will become citizens. Immigrants are future citizens, and we recognize them as citizens in the making. As Aristotle said in Physics, “With respect to what is eternal, there is no difference between being possible and being.” New citizens take on the same responsibilities as existing citizens: obeying laws, paying taxes, voting. And once a new citizen is adopted into the family of fellow citizens, he must accept the good with the bad, both past and present, in order to contribute to and help shape the future. Canada is the land of our ancestors, as it says in our national anthem, and we are each and every one of us adopted by those ancestors. Newcomers are not invited to this country to spend a few years working, only to depart like migrants. Migrant is a very ugly word, and it should have no place in the Canadian vocabulary. Immigrant is the Canadian word. And citizenship is central to our immigration policy.

I truly believe that you can find a place to belong, as long as there is a negligible amount of force against you. I was lucky to come to this country, where we operate in an atmosphere of benevolent neglect: We are left alone to get on with our lives. This is where perseverance and generosity come in. Canadians are generous, even when they don’t know it. To me, this flexibility is the generosity that leads to gross national happiness, because it allows people to persevere through hard times and come out on the other side.

Refreshing recognition and advocacy of the efficacy and value of the more flexible, accommodative approach than the desire for more narrow and prescriptive Cartesian clarity.

Adrienne Clarkson on the anguish of not belonging.

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with ,

Rex Murphy: The case for revoking the citizenship of Canadian terrorists

2014/09/29 2 Comments

Rex Murphy makes the case for revoking citizenship.

Like Wente (How can we stop the jihadi tourists? – Margaret Wente), he forgets, either by design or by ignorance,  to mention that this means different treatment for the same crime based upon whether one has Canadian or dual nationality:

Priests are defrocked; medals from honour societies have been imperiously stripped from their holders; soldiers are court-marshalled and drummed out in disgrace; lawyers disbarred, judges swept from the bench, Senators tossed from caucuses, and even Presidents impeached.

The soldier who flees in combat and exposes his fellows to danger is seen as not worthy of being a solider. The judge who has oiled his palm with a bribe is seen as not worthy of being a judge. Treason and excommunication are long-standing responses to ultimate disfealties — and they are surely a kind of cancellation of status, one by the death penalty, the other by exclusion from the community of believers and the possibilities of salvation.

To my mind, these are all of an inferior enormity to the case of a citizen who abandons the country in which he was born, or to which he gave the oath of citizenship, who then pledges his fealty to a murderous band professing a murderous creed.

It’s a strange world in which we have even to contemplate such exigencies, but it is a strange world we find ourselves in today, in which nationals of the democracies willingly travel abroad to invest themselves in the orders of international terrorism, spit on their achieved citizenship, and threaten the safety of their onetime fellows in nationality.

The denial of passports is a stage toward the denial of citizenship. But the denial or witholding of passports is not a sufficient signal of the detestation a country and its people hold for those who so contemptuously forsake the gifts of loyalty and respect that a country rightfully commands from real citizens.

So to use his examples, decisions to defrock a priest do not depend on whether he was born into that religion or converted.

Neither are medals stripped, soldiers court martialed, lawyers disbarred, judges swept from the bench, or Senators tossed on the basis on the distinction whether they are single or dual nationality.

It is the crime or infraction that determines the punishment, with the same punishment for the same crime.

Passport cancellation applies to all, Canadian-born or naturalized, single or dual nationality, and thus consistent with the fundamental principle of equal treatment.

So pursue relentlessly, punish through the Canadian justice system but don’t make a distinction between nationality. After all, we have any number of Canadian-only nationals involved in extremist activity (e.g. Damian Clairmont, the Gordon brothers, John Maguire).

Rex Murphy: The case for revoking the citizenship of Canadian terrorists

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with

British Columbia Premier proposes name change for Temporary Foreign Worker program

2014/09/29 1 Comment

Not a stupid idea – names and labels are important – but goes completely against the grain of the recent changes to the Citizenship Act that removed credit for pre-permanent residency time, with Minister Alexander trying (not completely successfully) to argue for a clear distinction:

Christy Clark says a simple name change might help.

“I think the federal government needs to remember that almost all of us are descended from people who came from other countries. So maybe if they are overhauling the program they can change the name from temporary foreign worker to potential new Canadian. It was people from all over the world that built this company are continuing to do that.”

That said while Clark emphasized BC needs foreign workers to fill some jobs she says British Columbians must be in the front of the employment line.

Premier proposes name change for Temporary Foreign Worker program | CKNW AM AM980.

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with , , ,

Sept. 26: When jihadis ‘R’ Us – my letter in The Globe

2014/09/27 Leave a comment

My letter to The Globe on How can we stop the jihadi tourists? – Margaret Wente (tighter version than my post):

The cancellation of passports is not the same as the revocation of citizenship. Cancellation of passports potentially applies to all Canadians, whether born here or naturalized, whether dual national or not. Revocation applies only to those with dual nationality or with the right to another nationality.

Take an example from a Calgary terrorism cell. Canadian-born extremist Damian Clairmont would not have been subject to revocation while “cell mate” Pakistani dual national Salman Ashrafi, who came to Canada as a child, would have been. Both are dead, but there are comparable cases.

Two different punishments for the same crime. Hard to see how this would not be successfully challenged before the courts.

Far better to use the Australian approach, as stated by Prime Minister Tony Abbott: “If you fight with a terrorist group, if you seek to return to this country, as far as this government is concerned, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and you will be jailed for a very long time indeed.”

Sept. 26: When jihadis ‘R’ Us – and other letters to the editor – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with ,

How can we stop the jihadi tourists? – Margaret Wente

2014/09/26 2 Comments

Wente conflates cancellation of passports with revocation of citizenship.

Not the same at all. Cancellation of passports potentially applies to all Canadians, whether born in Canada or naturalized, whether Canadian citizens only or dual nationals.

Revocation on the other hand, applies only to those with dual nationality (or with the right to another nationality).

So take some examples from the same Calgary terrorism cell. The Canadian-born extremist Damian Clairmont would not be subject to revocation while his “cellmate” Pakistani dual national Salman Ashrafi, who came to Canada as a child, would be.

Both are dead, but there are other comparable cases among the known and likely unknown extremists.

Two different punishments for the same crime. Hard to see how this would not be successfully challenged before the courts.

Far better to use the Australian approach, as stated by PM Abbott, “If you fight with a terrorist group, if you seek to return to this country, as far as this government is concerned, you will be arrested, you will be prosecuted and you will be jailed for a very long time indeed.”

Justin Trudeau, the Liberal Leader, has said he opposes the Conservatives’ new measures, and that homegrown terrorists should be dealt with through the criminal justice system. “I think that a lot of Canadians, including very conservative Canadians, should be worried about the state willing to, and taking the power to, arbitrarily remove citizenship from people,” he said. “That’s a slippery slope that I don’t think we want to go on.”

But Mr. Trudeau – who is now out of step with the rest of the world – will not be eager to raise the subject again. After all, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has allied himself not only with Britain and Australia, but with Barack Obama and the UN.

It’s a very serious matter for governments to revoke the passports of their citizens, restrict their freedom and deprive them of their citizenship. And people who warn that states might abuse their new powers are right. Without vigilance, they probably will.

Finding the balance between national security and personal liberty is always tricky. But our first obligation is to protect ourselves – and the world – from bad Canadians. The virus of murderous fanaticism hasn’t gone away. And it will be around for a long time to come.

How can we stop the jihadi tourists? – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with , ,

I was terrified we’d lose all our money: banks tell US customers they won’t work with Americans

2014/09/26 Leave a comment

Good profile on the American dual national expatriates being caught up by FATCA:

Angry Canadians are rare. But Patricia Moon qualifies. Until 2012, Moon was actually an American – albeit one who had lived in Canada for 32 years. She settled in so well that in 2008, she added Canadian citizenship to her US one.

But Moon cut ties with America three years ago, after new banking laws aimed at tax evaders required expats like her to file more thorough US tax returns. She was five years behind on the news. “I was terrified we’d lose all our money,” she says.

After back-filing years of tax returns, Moon renounced her US citizenship in 2012. It was a defiant act she describes as being one of the first canaries to leave the coalmine as US banking laws make life more difficult for American expatriates. She wasn’t pleased she had to do it.

“It was like cutting off my right arm,” to not be American any more, says Moon, who only became a Canadian citizen in 2008. “Now, I’m simply angry.”

….On a Skype call with a reporter, Victoria Ferauge sits in her sunlit Paris house, smoking the occasional cigarette, and following the day’s French Parliament session with particular interest. Ferauge, a Seattle-born American married to a Frenchman, has been following and blogging about US tax laws for the last three years.

On this Thursday afternoon, France’s parliament is voting to approve an inter-governmental agreement with the US on Fatca compliance.

“A vast majority of Americans suddenly woke up to what’s going on,” Verauge says. She relates stories of fellow expatriates who have had to take their names off joint accounts – some holding small family inheritances – because banks would not accept US customers.

“My bank will not answer questions,” she says about her enquiries regarding their Fatca compliance.

Verauge is preparing to move to Osaka, but she has doubts how the law will play out in Japan. She is infuriated to be put in the position of suddenly finding herself in a foreign country and not having a dollar she can spend.

“I will give up my citizenship if it came to that.”

I was terrified we’d lose all our money: banks tell US customers they won’t work with Americans | Money | theguardian.com.

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →