Conrad Black wants to resume his Canadian citizenship.
David Frum wants the federal cabinet to wave it through.
What say you?
I say nay. Black made a considered decision while of sound mind to renounce his Canadian birthright.
That is his right.
His wife can sponsor him for permanent residency. Should he pass the security and medical checks, after a year of lawful residence, he can apply to be renaturalized — a process called “resumption of citizenship”. After taking the oath to the Queen, he would be a Canadian again.
All of this depends on his convictions being quashed. Should the obstruction of justice charge stand, presumably Black would be inadmissible for PR status. If that should happen, he can be a sometime resident on a tourist visa, like the Snowbirds.
Black is a great man and an eminent Canadian, yes. But he is also, by his own actions, not a citizen. Actions have consequences.
I see no reason to exempt Lord Black from the laws the rest of us have to follow. That mindset, you will remember, is what got him into trouble in the first place. (Unfair trouble? Yes. But wholly avoidable trouble, all the same…)
Update: Apparently he’s a PR already.
All right. So once he lives here for a year, he can apply to resume his citizenship. If he passes the character test. (Silly man. Should have done that before his legal troubles came up.)
An aside — here, as with so much else, Frum picks the wrong side. Is it unfair to say he always sides with the elite and/or powerful? (Bush, Obama, Black…)
This is exactly right. He wanted to be created a peer, so he coughed up his citizenship. You don’t get to do a mulligan on that kind of decision just because a different party’s in power now, and your wife is ill.
And as a political consideration, it would be extreme tone-deafness for the federal cabinet to be seen giving extraordinary consideration to a guy who might still end up with a pile of charges and civil suits sticking to him.
[...] Ben has an eminently sensible position on Lord Black of Crossharbour’s appeal to have his resumption of Canadian citizenship expedited by the federal cabinet. I agree with David Frum‘s assertion that had the scenario involved anyone other than Conrad Black, the Liberal government of the day would likely not have dredged up the 1919 Nickle Resolution to block the honour. But actions do have consequences, and Black coughed up his citizenship voluntarily and without duress. There’s a cost that comes with such decisions, freely made. [...]
He should not only be able to regain the citizenship, it should be no question. It is an inalienable, born of birth. The stupidity is related to the peerage and the politics, not the identity.
This goes deeper. If a citizen can disavow his state, the state can disavow the citizen. Both are too dangerous.
It is not inalienable; one can (and Black did) renounce one’s citizenship. With renunciation comes the loss of privilege attendant in Canadian citizenship.
One can never be stripped of the bare fact that one was born in Canada, but you sure as hell can forswear your citizenship in and allegiance to her.
And the state can disavow you, if you are a naturalized citizen who committed fraud on your immigration application.
May be dangerous, but it is the law today.
Alan, you want an eighteenth century-style perpetual allegiance doctrine? Where you can never disclaim your nationality?
Strong stuff, that.
Chretien was being an ass over the peerage, and then Black went off and sulked, giving up his Canadian citizenship. (JC’s legal interpretation stands only if you erase Bennett from history.)
Anyway, there are laws and a process to cover this, and Black should abide by them. If not, London’s a very nice place to live in.
Black’s a great man from Canada; just not — by his own choice — a Canadian citizen.
I am not suggesting it is not what it is but it is so wrong.
If we believe these rights to be inalienable, they should not be alienable. CItizenship is too vital to have it be severable or within the control of someone. I think the UN Declaration of Human Rights doesn’t even go far enough:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html#a15
It should be inherent in your existence once you are born somewhere you are a citizen of that place – even if you also have the right of asylum abroad as well as as personal autonomy as we do as Canadians.
We have the right to *a* nationality. Just not the right to a particular nationality.
Thought a lot about this because I was on the verge, at one point, of giving up my Canadian citizenship for a job.
I didn’t feel any less Canadian, but clearances are clearances.
Anyway, since 1977, it has been extraordinarily difficult to lose Canadian citizenship. You have to have another nationality, and you have to pay money and apply to an office in Sydney NS to get it processed.
The right to expatriation is a recent one — a product of the Enlightenment — as late as the early 19th century, it did not exist in common law realms.
Don’t like it. The inability to voluntarily sever that bureaucratic mark of allegiance would invalidate a great many people from citizenship in other countries, and condemn them to compulsory military service, judicial punishments and the like, should they ever return to their country of birth.
That would give many countries the ability to manhandle Canadians as an “internal matter” if they don’t bother to renounce their prior citizenship. Bit of a recipe for massive international friction. Doesn’t seem wise.
(JC’s legal interpretation stands only if you erase Bennett from history.)
Can we do that anyway?
If that means we abolish the CBC — deal.