I'm Sorry, But You Are No Longer A Canadian.

Posted on Wednesday, January 24 at 09:47 by drcaleb
Barbara Porteous applied for a passport last year and was told in a letter from Citizenship and Immigration that she would have to apply to become a landed immigrant after spending most of her 70 years in Canada. "These documents confirm you were a Canadian citizen, but you ceased being a Canadian citizen on June 14, 1960, the day following your 24th birthday," the letter read. A Canadian born in the U.S. to a Canadian father, Porteous has lived in Osoyoos, B.C., for the last 46 years and even worked as a returning officer for Elections Canada. "I cried for a couple of hours," Porteous told CBC News. "I mean, the hollowness you get inside when you find out that everything you live for is gone." Porteous is part of a group known as the Lost Canadians. According to Canadian census data, there are an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 people in Canada who could find out they've lost their citizenship if they apply for a passport. Porteous said her life could be ruined by a technicality she was never told about. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/23/citizenship-passports.html [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on January 24, 2007]

Note: http://www.cbc.ca/canad...

Contributed By


Topic


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:13 pm
    Well gee golly and whizickers Capt'n Canaduh
    there is some truth to to the maxim that it is ignorance of the law...
    who wudda thunk it?
    The call has bee made to be ever vigilant in matters of politics and the law which most likely will arise out of it

    ---
    [juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

    it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

    lex ferenda

  2. Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:41 pm
    To keep up with all the legal nonsense is an impossibility even for those who had the means and mental capacity to dedicate their lives towards it.

  3. Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:44 pm
    "Hundreds of people are suddenly discovering that they are not Canadians as new laws requiring travellers to have a passport to fly to the U.S. go into effect"

    Another reason NOT to get those papers.

    Everything the government does (and it's not just the US government doing this crap) is to restrict travel and make it difficult and dangerous to the point where casual travelers simply won't bother.

    My question is why?

  4. by avatar Jacob
    Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:08 pm
    Other countries like the Netherlands have (or had) similar legislation. A young adult born in another country (who of course had dual citizenship) needed to make up his or her mind (one way or another) by a certain age.

    The problem in Canada seems to be that this has not been considered "common knowledge" for many years. Why, I can only wonder.

    Wasn't there a BC politician who was a British subject and as a result could be Party Leader but not a voter or a candidate?

  5. Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:17 pm
    "The problem in Canada seems to be that this has not been considered "common knowledge" for many years. Why, I can only wonder."

    Apparently the Canadian government itself was unaware of its own legislation, so I think we can scratch these unfortunate people of the list of incompetents.

  6. Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:20 pm
    Since they've all been found to not be Canadian, they should all apply for tax refunds for the years since they lost their citizenship. :)

  7. Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:04 am
    At one time if you were from a Comonwealth country, you automaticly became a citizen. After WWII refugees were also given status. My mother was a refugee from German. It wasn't untill I had to be cleared for top security that it was revealed she wasn't a citizen. Obtaining citizenship then was no big deal. She was advised in those twenty sum years married to my dad, the rules were changed. They just forgot to mention it to the people effected.

    ---
    Expect little from life and get more from it.

  8. Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:11 am
    Thank you rg, You may return to your cell now

    ---
    [juris ignorantia est cum jus nostrum ignoramus]

    it is ignorance of the law when we do not know our own rights"

    lex ferenda

  9. Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:25 am
    Some thoughts on ignorance of the law b Lysander Spooner is, for instance, manifestly absurd to say that jurors have no moral responsibility for the enforcement of an unjust law, when they consent to render a verdict of guilty for the transgression of it; which verdict they know, or have good reason to believe, will be used by the government as a justification for inflicting a penalty. It is absurd, also, to say that jurors have no moral responsibility for a punishment inflicted upon a man against law, when, at the dictation of a judge as to what the law is, they have consented to render a verdict against their own opinions of the law. It is absurd, too, to say that jurors have no moral responsibility for the conviction and punishment of an innocent man, when they consent to render a verdict against him on the strength of evidence, or laws of evidence, dictated to them by the court, if any new evidence or laws of evidence have been excluded, which they (the jurors) think ought to have been admitted in his defence. It is absurd to say that jurors have no moral responsibility for rendering a verdict of "guilty" against a man, for an act which he did not know to be a crime, and in the commission of which, therefore he could have had no criminal intent, in obedience to the instructions of courts that "ignorance of the law (that is, of crime) excuses no one." It is absurd, also, to say that jurors have no moral responsibility for any cruel and unusual sentence that may be inflicted even upon a guilty man, when they consent to render a verdict which they have reason to believe will be used by the government as a justification for the infliction of such sentence. The consequence is, that jurors must have the whole case in their hands, and judge of law, evidence, and sentence, or they incur the moral responsibility of accomplices in any injustice which they have reason to believe will be done by the government on the authority of their verdict. The same principles apply to civil cases as criminal. If a jury consent, at the dictation of the court, as to either law or evidence, to render a verdict, on the strength of which they have reason to believe that a man's property will be taken from him and given to another, against their own notions of justice, they make themselves morally responsible for the wrong. Every man, therefore, ought to refuse to sit in a jury, and to take the oath of a juror, unless the form of the oath be such as to allow him to use his own judgment, on every part of the case, free of all dictation whatsoever, and to hold in his own hand a veto upon any verdict that can be rendered against a defendant, and any sentence that can be inflicted upon him, even if he be guilty. Of course, no man can rightfully take an oath as a juror, to try a case "according to law," (if by law be meant anything other than his own ideas of justice,) nor "according to the law and the evidence, as they shall be given to him." Nor can he rightfully take an oath even to try a case "according to the evidence," because in all cases he may have good reason to believe that a party has been unable to produce all the evidence legitimately entitled to be received. The only oath which it would seem that a man can rightfully take as a juror, in either a civil or criminal case, is, that he "will try the case according to his conscience." Of course, the form may admit of variation, but this should be the substance. Such, we have seen, were the ancient common law oaths. http://www.mind-trek.com/treatise/ls-tbj/ch10.htm I wanted to post LS's stuff where I felt it relivant this is the best I could do <p>---<br>I gazed at every mirror on the planet, not one gave back my reflection - Jorge Luis Borges



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news