4 ms·

I think you're tinfoiling a bit hard here. My guess is that this is just a populist move, you left the country to fight with ISIS, well guess what, we aren't pa

by belval 5y ago

I think you're tinfoiling a bit hard here. My guess is that this is just a populist move, you left the country to fight with ISIS, well guess what, we aren't paying to bring you back and don't feel the need to get your out of whatever horrible prison you're in. The real question to me is what will Canada do. The terrorist in question is "Canadian" but iirc never set foot in Canada and is only asking for asylum because the UK stripped him from his citizenship. Now that is much more interesting because this creates a clash between that most Canadian would associate with citizenship (having lived a least a bit in Canada) and the law.

rich_sasha 5y ago
I’d agree it sounds tinfoily, but the Windrush scandal in the UK went along similar lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal TLDR is that people who had permanent right to live in the UK and arrived as children were forcibly deported to countries they never lived in, via a humiliating process. The only clear reason for it was the principle of “hostile environment”, that is that life must be made difficult for illegal immigrants at every stage; went as far as people who were actually “legal”...
CogitoCogito 5y ago
If those were truly their goals, they could just pass a law saying they won’t provide consular services or aid to those who fight for ISIS. Stripping citizenship isn’t necessary.
detaro 5y ago
We're talking a system which had to be told by the courts that if the law requires to give somebody notice that the process to revoke citizenship was initiated, it can't count "we put the papers in their internal Home Office file" as "delivery of notice". We're talking the system of the Windrush scandal, which only after intense pressure cost the Home secretary her job, and which two following holders of the position haven't managed to actually effectively implement the measures promised to attempt to fix the damage done. Strong skepticism is sadly warranted.
TMWNN 5y ago
>The real question to me is what will Canada do. The terrorist in question is "Canadian" but iirc never set foot in Canada and is only asking for asylum because the UK stripped him from his citizenship. Now that is much more interesting because this creates a clash between that most Canadian would associate with citizenship (having lived a least a bit in Canada) and the law. Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians_of_convenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians_of_convenience

by belval 5y ago

rich_sasha 5y ago

I’d agree it sounds tinfoily, but the Windrush scandal in the UK went along similar lines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal TLDR is that people who had permanent right to live in the UK and arrived as children were forcibly deported to countries they never lived in, via a humiliating process. The only clear reason for it was the principle of “hostile environment”, that is that life must be made difficult for illegal immigrants at every stage; went as far as people who were actually “legal”...

CogitoCogito 5y ago

If those were truly their goals, they could just pass a law saying they won’t provide consular services or aid to those who fight for ISIS. Stripping citizenship isn’t necessary.

detaro 5y ago

We're talking a system which had to be told by the courts that if the law requires to give somebody notice that the process to revoke citizenship was initiated, it can't count "we put the papers in their internal Home Office file" as "delivery of notice". We're talking the system of the Windrush scandal, which only after intense pressure cost the Home secretary her job, and which two following holders of the position haven't managed to actually effectively implement the measures promised to attempt to fix the damage done. Strong skepticism is sadly warranted.

TMWNN 5y ago

>The real question to me is what will Canada do. The terrorist in question is "Canadian" but iirc never set foot in Canada and is only asking for asylum because the UK stripped him from his citizenship. Now that is much more interesting because this creates a clash between that most Canadian would associate with citizenship (having lived a least a bit in Canada) and the law. Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians_of_convenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadians_of_convenience