In many countries it is nearly impossible to get citizenship without having citizen parents.
I'm not sure why you would want to give the children of those committing treason citizenship, it could be a future risk if said children enter the same path.
Actually, you don't have to be a citizen to commit treason. There is a notion of 'temporary allegiance' which allows non citizens to be prosecuted for treason.
If a "spy" has a child in Canada who would not be a citizen but for where they are born, that implies the parent cannot be guilty of treason against Canada as they are not Canadian.
Also, as a counterpoint, applying penalties for crimes to the descendants of an offender has become unfashionable in some circles. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attainder
"The United States Constitution prohibits corruption of blood as a punishment for treason."
Most countries do not grant jus soli rights, and several grant it only with significant restrictions. This is not a universal human right. Canada has a right to set restrictions on jus soli rights.
Canada already does not grant citizenship to children born to foreign diplomats working in Canada. Spies are working for a foreign government, just not declaring it.
The defense in this case is not arguing that canada's law is illegal.. just that the law specifically says diplomats, and spies aren't diplomats.
It's not clear that simply not declaring your employer makes you immune from the law anymore than not declaring your income makes you immune from taxes.
I wasn't using the word "penalty" in a legalistic sense, and I think you are. Something can have multiple causes or effects, so insisting that one of them is the correct one may be beside the point.
> Canada already does not grant citizenship to children born to foreign diplomats working in Canada.
Essentially no country recognizing jus soli does that for essentially the same reason that diplomatic immunity exists (and affecting the exact same set of people subject to diplomatic immunity)—the presence of diplomats in a country is a convenience for both the sending and receiving country, which, in the interest of relations between the two countries, died not have the legal effect that that presence would otherwise have for the individuals. Non-diplomats who are employed by a foreign government within a country are but tested the same way.
> It's not clear that simply not declaring your employer makes you immune from the law
Declaration isn't the point. Non-citizens openly working for a foreign country in non-diplomatic roles aren't covered either. The diplomat's unique status as, essentially, a mutually-recognized extension of the foreign state is the point.
> I'm not sure why you would want to give the children of those committing treason citizenship
There's a reason that the US Constitutionally prohibited corruption of blood from the establishment of the Constitution and the United Kingdom abolished it in the 19th Century.
That doesn't mean whether their sons were tortured or otherwise persecuted is irrelevant as evidence of what the US is like. As we see in this thread the categories of "foreign spies" and "traitors" are associated in peoples' minds.
Good to know that if I sneak into your household to give birth, my child is welcome into your household and you're obligated to provide for them. Brood parasitism is in fact good for the victim!
That is, in fact, how the law works in Canada, the US, and many other countries in the Western hemisphere. There is a narrow exception for embassy and consular employees which the government thought should apply to spies but which the court has overturned. It's an edge case that is not clear cut either way.
I don't think it is right to punish the children (stripping them of their birthright citizenship) on the basis of the crimes of their parents (espionage), particularly when said children spent most of their childhoods in Canada.
You're misinformed; Canada is so loose, it actually has a "birth tourism" problem. Pregnant women come from Canada from other countries as mere visitors in order to deliver here, so that it can be Canadian and enjoy perks like much cheaper university tuition down the line. Sometimes these women rack up big hospital bills which are left unpaid.
The fact that we are even debating whether the offspring of foreign enemies of the state should be citizens shows you how bad the problem is. "Should not be" means "now actually are".
We should clamp down on all this nonsense and retroactively take away these drummed-up citizenships away going back at least 20-30 years.
There's a country directly south of Canada made for people with views like yours. Feel free to leave at any time.
I've never heard of this problem with immigrants coming to Canada just to give their children Canadian citizenship before, I'd love to see some documentation. It sounds suspiciously similar to right wing rhetoric in the United States that claims Mexican women do the same.
A founding value of our country is relatively open immigration, as that is how it became populated. My distant anscestors came here and benefited from that, and I suspect yours did as well.
Having a child in Canada only benefits the child, the parent gets no benefit. They have to apply for permanent residency and get no special treatment for having a Canadian child.
Children of our enemies rejecting their parents culture choosing to live here is something we should encourage.
For historical context refer to United Empire Loyalists immigrating from the United States (an enemy at the time) and being given land grants and other privileges.
> I've never heard of this problem with immigrants coming to Canada just to give their children Canadian citizenship before, I'd love to see some documentation.
A good start might be to search "CBC birth tourism". (The CBC isn't some right-wing mouthpiece, but it has reported on the issue. Usually using the perspective like that something is going on that some conservatives (i.e. no, not us) would like to end.)
Birth tourism isn't immigration. These mothers have no status in Canada and aren't going through any immigration process to become permanent residents or citizens. They are just sneaking in their kids ahead of the immigration queue by the mere fact that those kids were delivered while on a well-timed vacation in Canada.
It's vicious and despicable; like an insect injecting its eggs into a host.
> right wing rhetoric in the United States that claims Mexican women do the same
Calling something "rhetoric" is a rhetorical device.
>It's vicious and despicable; like an insect injecting its eggs into a host.
The fact that you would refer to another human being looking for a better future for their child (and their child alone) as an insect is a validation of my assumptions about your character after seeing your first comment. I have no further comments.
First of all, many of these people are already quite wealthy and are just speculating how to preserve and increase their capital. For instance, a kid with a Canadian citizenship, when old enough, can be put on a land title and then it's not "foreign owned" any more; that child never has to even set foot in Canada after being born there and returning home. It's an obvious loophole to bypass taxes that discourage speculation that harms the housing market for locals.
Secondly, simply looking for a "better future" for your child doesn't make anyone a saint and it certainly isn't an end which justifies all means. For example, if the future of your child is currently "fair to not bad" (let alone "half decent to pretty good") it is not justifiable to do anything whatsoever for their betterment, like perpetrate crime.
"Anything for my child" is not even remotely close to an irreproachable moral principle.
In history, people have committed atrocities for the sake of furthering their own kind which is basically for their children.
All of you who perpetuated this hellish flamewar need to re-read the guidelines and go to bed without supper. Commenting like that will get you banned on Hacker News. Please don't do it again.
Are kids born to spies spies themselves? Is ideology genetic? I know one thing, they'll live a lifetime of surveillance if they stay, and how will society treat them knowing their background?
That's not the governments argument. Canada does not grant citizenship to children born to foreign diplomats working in Canada. The argument is that since spies are working for a foreign government, their children also do not qualify for citizenship.
That's a very clear, easy to understand rule. It makes perfect sense. The only question is if a rule that applies to foreign diplomats can also apply to spies.
I'd presume if they know you're a spy then you're failing at spying, right? But if you don't already know that they know (otherwise you probably wouldn't stick around?) then your poor kid now has no idea if he's a citizen or not. So this would mean that you could have a kid that grows up thinking he's a citizen, and being treated as he is, but who suddenly finds out he's not. That would suck for the kid. Do they imagine that will work out somehow?
The kid does have citizenship... of the parents country. The brothers in the article are Russian citizens.
The parents knew 100% who they were working for. Maybe they shouldn't lie to their children?
It's sort of like Madoff stealing billions and his children growing up thinking they were rich.. and then one day, the government comes and takes all the money away and imprisons the thief. And then someone asks, but shouldn't these children still be rich? Why should they live in poverty when they grew up their entire lives thinking they were billionaires?
Yes, but it's overly simplistic. It's not the fault of the kids that their parents were engage din deception, and now that the kids have (partially) grown up in the sincere belief that they are Canadian they have a separate interest from that of their parents. In a tricky cas like this you could rule with the proviso that they won't be able to enjoy the normal benefits that would accrue to the parents of citizens, like any preferential immigration or visa rights.
Lets say a child born to spies grows up for 20 years in Canada, as a Canadian and has nothing to do with his/her parents spying activities. If suddenly one day they lose their citizenship, what are they supposed to do? Where are they supposed to go? Canada is the only homeland they've known. How does them getting punished for their parents' sins makes any sense?
One idea: to report themselves to the appropriate intelligence bureau of their home country with documents about their parentage. They can get their appropriate citizenship there and then apply for permanent residency in Canada.
A special immigration class could be created for their particular circumstance (they are not "skilled worker" or "family class" or any of that sort of thing), but in other regards they have to join the same immigration queue as everyone else.
Of course, if they have any serious criminal record or anything in Canada, they can forget about it.
They're not a legal immigrant, because they lied on their immigration papers, making their immigration invalid.
If they're an illegal immigrant, their children would be granted citizenship.
If they're a diplomat, their children would not be granted citizenship. The child of the Russian Ambassador does not become a Canadian citizen even if born and raised in Toronto.
I think the government's argument that they're more like a diplomat (an agent of a foreign country) than an undocumented resident (e.g., someone who's entered the country of their own volition for work) is pretty sound.
44 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 103 ms ] threadIn many countries it is nearly impossible to get citizenship without having citizen parents.
I'm not sure why you would want to give the children of those committing treason citizenship, it could be a future risk if said children enter the same path.
Foreign agents who aren't citizens aren't committing treason. That is, unless they defect.
Well the problem just clears itself up
Also, as a counterpoint, applying penalties for crimes to the descendants of an offender has become unfashionable in some circles. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attainder
"The United States Constitution prohibits corruption of blood as a punishment for treason."
Most countries do not grant jus soli rights, and several grant it only with significant restrictions. This is not a universal human right. Canada has a right to set restrictions on jus soli rights.
Canada already does not grant citizenship to children born to foreign diplomats working in Canada. Spies are working for a foreign government, just not declaring it.
The defense in this case is not arguing that canada's law is illegal.. just that the law specifically says diplomats, and spies aren't diplomats.
It's not clear that simply not declaring your employer makes you immune from the law anymore than not declaring your income makes you immune from taxes.
You've changed the wording to fit your narrative. These spies were not diplomats. They had no immunity.
Yes, it obviously is.
> Canada already does not grant citizenship to children born to foreign diplomats working in Canada.
Essentially no country recognizing jus soli does that for essentially the same reason that diplomatic immunity exists (and affecting the exact same set of people subject to diplomatic immunity)—the presence of diplomats in a country is a convenience for both the sending and receiving country, which, in the interest of relations between the two countries, died not have the legal effect that that presence would otherwise have for the individuals. Non-diplomats who are employed by a foreign government within a country are but tested the same way.
> It's not clear that simply not declaring your employer makes you immune from the law
Declaration isn't the point. Non-citizens openly working for a foreign country in non-diplomatic roles aren't covered either. The diplomat's unique status as, essentially, a mutually-recognized extension of the foreign state is the point.
There's a reason that the US Constitutionally prohibited corruption of blood from the establishment of the Constitution and the United Kingdom abolished it in the 19th Century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Meeropol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Meeropol
>fuck Putin
I don't think it is right to punish the children (stripping them of their birthright citizenship) on the basis of the crimes of their parents (espionage), particularly when said children spent most of their childhoods in Canada.
The fact that we are even debating whether the offspring of foreign enemies of the state should be citizens shows you how bad the problem is. "Should not be" means "now actually are".
We should clamp down on all this nonsense and retroactively take away these drummed-up citizenships away going back at least 20-30 years.
I've never heard of this problem with immigrants coming to Canada just to give their children Canadian citizenship before, I'd love to see some documentation. It sounds suspiciously similar to right wing rhetoric in the United States that claims Mexican women do the same.
A founding value of our country is relatively open immigration, as that is how it became populated. My distant anscestors came here and benefited from that, and I suspect yours did as well.
Having a child in Canada only benefits the child, the parent gets no benefit. They have to apply for permanent residency and get no special treatment for having a Canadian child.
Children of our enemies rejecting their parents culture choosing to live here is something we should encourage.
For historical context refer to United Empire Loyalists immigrating from the United States (an enemy at the time) and being given land grants and other privileges.
A good start might be to search "CBC birth tourism". (The CBC isn't some right-wing mouthpiece, but it has reported on the issue. Usually using the perspective like that something is going on that some conservatives (i.e. no, not us) would like to end.)
Birth tourism isn't immigration. These mothers have no status in Canada and aren't going through any immigration process to become permanent residents or citizens. They are just sneaking in their kids ahead of the immigration queue by the mere fact that those kids were delivered while on a well-timed vacation in Canada.
It's vicious and despicable; like an insect injecting its eggs into a host.
> right wing rhetoric in the United States that claims Mexican women do the same
Calling something "rhetoric" is a rhetorical device.
Is that rhetoric true or false?
>It's vicious and despicable; like an insect injecting its eggs into a host.
The fact that you would refer to another human being looking for a better future for their child (and their child alone) as an insect is a validation of my assumptions about your character after seeing your first comment. I have no further comments.
Secondly, simply looking for a "better future" for your child doesn't make anyone a saint and it certainly isn't an end which justifies all means. For example, if the future of your child is currently "fair to not bad" (let alone "half decent to pretty good") it is not justifiable to do anything whatsoever for their betterment, like perpetrate crime.
"Anything for my child" is not even remotely close to an irreproachable moral principle.
In history, people have committed atrocities for the sake of furthering their own kind which is basically for their children.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
That's a very clear, easy to understand rule. It makes perfect sense. The only question is if a rule that applies to foreign diplomats can also apply to spies.
The parents knew 100% who they were working for. Maybe they shouldn't lie to their children?
It's sort of like Madoff stealing billions and his children growing up thinking they were rich.. and then one day, the government comes and takes all the money away and imprisons the thief. And then someone asks, but shouldn't these children still be rich? Why should they live in poverty when they grew up their entire lives thinking they were billionaires?
One idea: to report themselves to the appropriate intelligence bureau of their home country with documents about their parentage. They can get their appropriate citizenship there and then apply for permanent residency in Canada.
A special immigration class could be created for their particular circumstance (they are not "skilled worker" or "family class" or any of that sort of thing), but in other regards they have to join the same immigration queue as everyone else.
Of course, if they have any serious criminal record or anything in Canada, they can forget about it.
From a human perspective: so what? They are victims of their parents, the only life they know is Canadian. It seems morally wrong to deny them.
This seems like one of those easy cases: rule they aren’t citizens but grant them citizenship under humanitarian grounds anyway.
But someone working for a overseas private company can.
Seems kinda convoluted.
They're not a legal immigrant, because they lied on their immigration papers, making their immigration invalid.
If they're an illegal immigrant, their children would be granted citizenship.
If they're a diplomat, their children would not be granted citizenship. The child of the Russian Ambassador does not become a Canadian citizen even if born and raised in Toronto.
I think the government's argument that they're more like a diplomat (an agent of a foreign country) than an undocumented resident (e.g., someone who's entered the country of their own volition for work) is pretty sound.
That’s what often they get you on rather than espionage which is harder to prove.