Chris Selley: Stripping jihadis’ citizenship feels good. But what good does it do?

2014/06/21 1 Comment

Another good column by Chris Selley on citizenship revocation (see his earlier Actually, my citizenship is a right | National Post). Quite funny in places too, but his fundamental point is serious:

But that only leads us to the biggest question, which is why we would want to banish terrorists at all — not in our guts which is understandable but as policy. British terrorism suspects recently stripped of their citizenship are currently at large in Sudan, Kenya, Somalia, Afghanistan and other places that could certainly use fewer terrorism suspects rather than more. Home Secretary Theresa May has denaturalized and deported at least one British citizen over the advice of her own security officials, who would have much preferred to keep an eye on him.

FOX News types pitch a fit whenever a former Guantanamo detainee pops up on the frontlines — as many have. They went nuts when it emerged the Americans released Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from custody in Iraq in 2009, only to have to deal with him now as leader of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.

You can’t keep people in custody forever. Sometimes you have to make tough choices and cross your fingers. But why would we deliberately choose to set ostensibly dangerous people loose in the Middle East? No doubt it would give some of us a cheap thrill. But Chris Alexander is not Minister of Cheap Thrills.

National Post | Chris Selley: Stripping jihadis’ citizenship feels good. But what good does it do?

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with ,

US Officials Fear Moner Mohammad Abusalha’s Jihad Video Will Inspire Others – NYTimes.com

2014/06/18 Leave a comment

More on home-grown terrorism, this time a US example:

Although the suicide bomber was not identified by nationality or name, a video was circulated last month that appears to have documented Mr. Abusalha’s mission. That previous video shows rebels loading what appear to be tank shells into a large vehicle that had been armored with metal plates. Later, there is a large explosion after the vehicle drives down a road.

Mr. Abusalha was born in Florida, played basketball as a teenager and was known as “Mo.” In high school, he would often sneak out to pray instead of study. His mother is American and his father Palestinian. They owned grocery stores in the Vero Beach, Fla., area.

After graduating from high school, he enrolled in three colleges but dropped out of each, and in 2012, he told friends he was moving to Orlando. Shortly thereafter he told friends he was moving to Jordan to take courses as a nursing assistant.

In the past year, he lost touch with his parents. His friends believe that he was recruited by extremists while he was living in Jordan. In Syria, he adopted a nom de guerre, Abu Huraira al-Amriki. He spent two months in a training camp of Nusra Front, the militant group, in Aleppo before going to the northern province of Idlib, where he carried out the suicide attack.

US Officials estimate that some 100 Americans have travelled to Syria. Seems a bit low given Canadian estimates of around 30.

Officials Fear Moner Mohammad Abusalha’s Jihad Video Will Inspire Others – NYTimes.com.

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with

David Cameron: British values arent optional, they’re vital

2014/06/16 Leave a comment

UK Prime Minister on British values:

The second is social. Our values have a vital role to play in uniting us.

They should help to ensure Britain not only brings together people from different countries, cultures and ethnicities, but also ensures that, together, we build a common home.

In recent years we have been in danger of sending out a worrying message: that if you don’t want to believe in democracy, that’s fine; that if equality isn’t your bag, don’t worry about it; that if you’re completely intolerant of others, we will still tolerate you.

As I’ve said before, this has not just led to division, it has also allowed extremism – of both the violent and non-violent kind – to flourish.

So I believe we need to be far more muscular in promoting British values and the institutions that uphold them.

That’s what a genuinely liberal country does: it believes in certain values and actively promotes them. It says to its citizens: this is what defines us as a society.

What does that mean in practice? We have already taken some big steps.

We are making sure new immigrants can speak English, because it will be more difficult for them to understand these values, and the history of our institutions, if they can’t speak our language.

We are bringing proper narrative history back to the curriculum, so our children really learn our island’s story – and where our freedoms and things like our Parliament and constitutional monarchy came from.

And as we announced this week, we are changing our approach further in schools. We are saying it isn’t enough simply to respect these values in schools – we’re saying that teachers should actively promote them. They’re not optional; they’re the core of what it is to live in Britain.

DAVID CAMERON: British values arent optional, they’re vital | Mail Online.

Ironically, given the UK’s citizenship revocation policy, even for those who would be left stateless, he closes with a reference to the Magna Carta, which abolished banishment as a form of punishment (although not for the convicts who settled Australia):

Next year it will be the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. Indeed, it was on this very day, 799 years ago, that the Great Charter was sealed at Runnymede in Surrey.

It’s a great document in our history – what my favourite book, Our Island Story, describes as the ‘foundation of all our laws and liberties’.

In sealing it, King John had  to accept that his subjects were citizens – for the first time giving them rights, protections and security.

 

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with , ,

Yale Law Journal Forum: Citizenship, Passports, and the Legal Identity of Americans

2014/06/16 Leave a comment

For citizenship legal and policy wonks, a lengthy article on US practices in relation to citizenship and passport revocation. Current US approach is to revoke passports (overly so, the author argues) while US citizenship has been largely untouchable since the 1967 Afroyim v, Rusk case:

Yet Afroyim has reversed this classical conception of sovereignty. In his majority opinion, Justice Black—after having conceded that all nations possess an implied attribute of sovereignty—stated that “[o]ther nations are governed by their own constitutions, if any, and we can draw no support from theirs. In our country the people are sovereign and the Government cannot sever its relationship to the people by taking away their citizenship.” It is on the basis of the sovereignty of the citizen—a sovereignty limited to the status of citizenship itself and to certain privileges and immunities stemming from it—that American citizenship has become absolutely secured. However, since Afroyim, the Supreme Court has not ruled on a case that would allow the Justices to bring the privileges and immunities of the U.S. citizen up to date with this new understanding of citizenship. Is it not time for the Court to read the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Slaughter-House jurisprudence in the spirit of Afroyim—i.e., to declare as an absolute right the possession by all Americans abroad of a document attesting to their legal identity, a right to which the executive and legislative powers must defer?

…

When the power to naturalize was transferred by the Immigration Act of 1990 from the courts to the Attorney General, another provision of the same Act transferred to the Attorney General the power “to correct, reopen, alter, modify, or vacate an order naturalizing the person.” But in 2000, in Gorbach v. Reno, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the exclusive statutory competence of the courts to revoke citizenship. Following this decision, the Department of Homeland Security has not attempted to resume the use of administrative denaturalization.73 Since 2001, only several dozen naturalized Americans have lost their citizenship, through judicial proceedings, largely because they committed different kinds of fraud during the naturalization process. This small number is in part explained by Kungys v. United States, in which the Court refused to uphold the denaturalization of Juozas Kungys because the government had not shown that his misrepresentation concerning the date and place of his birth were facts that, if known, would have warranted denial of citizenship.

The Yale Law Journal – Forum: Citizenship, Passports, and the Legal Identity of Americans: Edward Snowden and Others Have a Case in the Courts.

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with ,

It’s a mystery how middle-class Calgary man turned suicide bomber was recruited into ISIS terror group: family

2014/06/14 Leave a comment

More on the cases of Salman Asrafi and Damian Clairmont:

“To be honest, we don’t know what happened to Salman,” a relative said in an email exchange. He asked not to be identified because he did not want to be associated with Mr. Ashrafi’s suspected involvement in terrorism.

While his recruitment into ISIS is puzzling, it is evidence the strength of the extremist group is due partly to its recruitment of foreign fighters. Founded by Al-Qaeda members, it is one of three armed groups in the region that have attracted the most outside volunteers.

Mr. Ashrafi was a Pakistani-Canadian with no affiliation to Iraq. But in Calgary, he had apparently fallen in with a circle of extremists who lived in the same apartment building above a small Islamic centre. Those who run the centre said they had tried to discourage the zealous young men, but they formed their own prayer group.

According to an account posted online by one of the men, who now goes by Abu Dujana, they worshipped Anwar Awlaki, the pro-Al Qaeda propagandist whose videos urge Muslims in the West to either go abroad and fight or conduct terrorist attacks at home.

Isolated by their own accord and with no guidance except the Internet, they decided that being a Muslim meant “jihad and sacrifice for Islam” rather than attending seminars in “an air-conditioned university hall,” wrote Abu Dujana.

The historical figures they admired were uncompromising men of action. “They were not just talking the talk,” he wrote, “but actually walking the walk. They were busy either killing the enemies of Allah or being awarded with martyrdom by being killed in the battlefield.”

There were between three and five members of the group. They included Damian Clairmont, a Muslim convert with a history of mental problems, but another was an engineer named Wassim who divided his time between Toronto and Calgary.

Under the Government’s proposed revocation measures, if they hadn’t been killed, but returned to Canada, and convicted, Salman could be stripped of his Canadian citizenship as a dual national while Damian could not. Same crime, different punishment.

It’s a mystery how middle-class Calgary man turned suicide bomber was recruited into ISIS terror group: family | National Post.

Filed under Citizenship, Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with , ,

Treat all Canadian citizens equally under the law – Globe Editorial

2014/06/12 Leave a comment

Thanks to Rocco Galati, renewed attention being paid to C-24 Citizenship Act revocation provisions. Globe editorial has it about right:

Rocco Galati, a Toronto lawyer, is right to be calling upon the federal government to present a reference question to Supreme Court, on the proposed revocation-of-citizenship amendments to the Citizenship Act. If the Harper government won’t refer the matter to the court, Mr. Galati says there should be a Charter challenge – and he’s right.

It is one thing to revoke a Canadian citizenship that was obtained by fraud or false pretenses; that is a long-standing part of our law, and should be. The Harper government, however, is proposing to strip citizenship from people found guilty of some serious crimes, in cases where the offender is a naturalized citizen – an immigrant to Canada – or even someone born in Canada, but who for whatever reason also holds the citizenship of another country.

The classes of crime in question are serious: treason, terrorism and specific military crimes such as spying for the enemy in time of war. But however serious the offence, when someone is born here, or has been accepted into this country legally and fairly, he or she is Canadian, for good or ill.

The Charter of Rights is very clear: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.” The principle is so fundamental that the Charter’s notwithstanding clause cannot be used to override this section.

It would be invidious to send into exile a foreign-born citizen who committed a crime as a Canadian, while imposing a prison sentence on a natural-born Canadian found guilty of the same crime. Canadian law should treat Canadians, including Canadians who break the law, as Canadians.

Stripping a citizen of citizenship is characteristic of a totalitarian regime such as the Soviet Union, which banished dissidents, including the writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn in 1974. It’s not a model for Canada to emulate.

Andrew Thompson, a political scientist at the University of Waterloo, has rightly pointed out how easily the proposed new citizenship-revocation law could have condemned Maher Arar, a dual Canadian-Syrian national, suspected of terrorism by Canada, to a life of imprisonment and torture in a Syrian prison. The amendments now before Parliament would have afforded him little opportunity to defend himself.

Treat all Canadian citizens equally under the law – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act, Revocation Tagged with ,

Jason Kenney says ‘there’s nothing we can do’ to stop extremists from leaving Canada to fight elsewhere

2014/06/10 Leave a comment

Sensible comments from Minister Kenney on the limits of what he government can do about Canadian extremists fighting abroad:

Canadian extremists fighting in Syria should be viewed as security risks when they come home but there is little the government can do to prevent them from leaving, Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney said in an interview Sunday.

“At the end of the day, if it’s a Canadian who’s been radicalized and they choose to leave this country, there’s nothing we can do to stop them,” he said. “You can’t have police standing at the airport detaining them as they seek to leave the country.

“What we can do is to try to monitor networks that recruit and radicalize youth,” he said. “They can’t catch every single instance but I think that the extremist networks know that there’s an extremely high level of vigilance in Canada.”…

“I think it’s a legitimate concern, not just with respect to anti-Semitism but violent extremism in general,” Mr. Kenney said. “Obviously, Westerners who’ve been radicalized to the point of risking their lives in fighting for, for example, Al-Qaeda-linked militants, constitute a prima facie security risk when they get back to their home countries.”

RCMP, as noted earlier, has a program to identify those most at risk (RCMP set to tackle extremism at home with program to curb radicalization of Canadian youth).

Interestingly, as C-24 Citizenship Act revisions advances to the Senate this week, Kenney made no distinction on single or dual nationals. He talks of “Canadians” and “Westerners,” while C-24, developed under his watch, authorizes revocation for dual citizens convicted of terror or treason-related offences.

Jason Kenney says ‘there’s nothing we can do’ to stop extremists from leaving Canada to fight elsewhere | National Post.

Filed under Radicalization, Revocation Tagged with ,

Toronto man convicted on terrorism charge – Mohamed Hersi Case

2014/06/02 Leave a comment

Update on the Hersi case (see earlier Toronto man told undercover officer it was ‘God’s Will’ for him join terror-group Al-Shabab, trial hears):

A university graduate, Mr. Hersi had been working as a security guard downtown. And that was where the undercover officer went, on the pretext that he was a consultant conducting opinion surveys of security guards….

The officer testified that Mr. Hersi confided much – including that he knew a Toronto man who had previously joined al-Shabab. They also discussed an English-language al-Qaeda propaganda article that was making the rounds at the time: “How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom.”

Mr. Hersi relayed that he was planning to join al-Shabab, the officer testified. During testimony, the accused denied this, saying he simply wanted to live in a Muslim country.

Searches of Mr. Hersi’s laptop revealed downloads of The U.S. Navy Seal Sniper Training Syllabus and The Anarchist Cookbook.

He now faces up to 10 years in prison.

In light of the Governments proposed measures on revocation for those convicted of terrorism in C-24 Citizenship Act revisions, this may provide an early case. He was convicted in a Canadian court and is likely a dual national (he was born in Somalia although raised and educated in Canada for most of his life).

So would the Government choose to strip him of his Canadian citizenship and send him to Somalia (where he would likely not have to serve jail time) or have him serve out his term in a Canadian jail?

Ironic situation: being convicted of intending to travel to Somalia to commit terrorism; ending up there following revocation.

Toronto man convicted on terrorism charge – The Globe and Mail.

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with , , ,

UK backs stripping citizenship over terrorism

2014/05/15 Leave a comment

Interesting amendment in light of the Canadian hearings on Bill C-24 Citizenship Act on the revocation provisions.

Shimon Fogel of CIJA took great pains in his testimony to state that Israel’s law of return only granted the right to citizenship; people still have to apply formally for citizenship. Under the UK approach, the law of return would mean that revocation in the case of Jews would not require them to formally take up Israeli citizenship – just having the right would be enough.

The proposed Canadian approach is that one has to have dual citizenship, not potentially have dual citizenship, plus a court process rather than Ministerial discretion. But the onus of proof is on the person the government proposes to revoke his or her citizenship:

In April, the upper house of the British parliament had rejected the measure proposed by Theresa May, the UK’s interior minister, but passed the law on Monday after a government amendment.

Members of the house voted 286 to 193 in favour of the amended legislation, peers from the opposition Labour party voted against.

The lords reversed course after May accepted the addition of a clause that would only allow citizenship to be taken away if there were “reasonable grounds” to believe suspects could acquire another nationality.

UK backs stripping citizenship over terrorism – Europe – Al Jazeera English.

The NY Times also covers this:

Britain has been one of the few Western countries that can revoke citizenship and its associated rights from dual citizens, even native-born Britons, if they are suspected or convicted of acts of terrorism or disloyalty. The government has stepped up its use of this tactic in recent years. In two cases, suspects have subsequently been killed in American drone strikes.

The new rules will broaden these so-called deprivation powers to include Britons who have no second nationality, provided that they were naturalized as adults. If the home secretary deems that their citizenship is “seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom,” it can be taken away, effective immediately, without a public hearing. A suspect whose citizenship rights have been stripped has 28 days to appeal to a special immigration court.

 Britain Expands Power to Strip Citizenship From Terrorism Suspects

Filed under C-24, Citizenship, Citizenship Act, Revocation Tagged with , ,

UK: Theresa May to seek support for plan to deprive terror suspects of citizenship

2014/05/09 Leave a comment

In light of the Canadian government’s proposed revocation for dual nationals convicted of terrorism or comparable crimes, will be interesting to see whether UK Home Secretary will be able to overcome House of Lords opposition to revocation even in cases of statelessness.

To be followed as the UK has, among Western countries, the most draconian and discretionary approach to revocation (the Canadian government proposals have been questioned by some witnesses on both substantive and process grounds at committee hearings, but this less arbitrary with some due process in contrast to UK):

A former director of public prosecutions, a former supreme court judge and 23 Liberal Democrats were among the 242 peers who supported Lord Pannick’s successful Lords amendment that would delay its implementation. The move was added to the immigration bill in January without any of the pre-legislative scrutiny that the remainder was subject to.

At the time of the Lords defeat, Pannick said: “There are regrettably all too many dictators around the world willing to use the creation of statelessness as a weapon. We should do nothing to suggest that it is acceptable.”

Theresa May to seek support for plan to deprive terror suspects of citizenship | Politics | The Guardian.

Strong commentary against the UK approach by Donald Campbell of Reprieve, a NGO that “delivers justice and saves lives, from death row to Guantanamo Bay.”

In medieval England, those who had been forced to “abjure the realm” and go into exile would be required to walk barefoot, carrying a wooden cross, to the nearest port.  There, they were to take passage on the first available ship; until they were able to do so, they had to wade, daily, into the sea, as testimony to their willingness to leave the country.

This specific provision is absent from the Home Secretary’s proposed expansion of her powers to arbitrarily deprive Britons of their citizenship – expected to be considered again by MPs this week.  But the echo of the medieval punishment of banishment in the modern measure of ‘citizenship-stripping’ is impossible to ignore. It has perhaps been best summed up by the Supreme Court of the United States, which has described the practice of making someone stateless by removing their citizenship as “a form of punishment more primitive than torture.”

Theresa May’s citizenship-stripping proposal is worse than medieval banishment

Filed under Citizenship, Revocation Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →