Children born to spies in Canada should not be handed citizenship, says Ottawa
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.