[cncrnd]

Soil rights are not a basic human right...

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.

[mirimir]

> ... those committing treason ...

Foreign agents who aren't citizens aren't committing treason. That is, unless they defect.

[cncrnd]

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.

[wavefunction]

>not citizens

Well the problem just clears itself up

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[perl4ever]

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."

[rgbrenner]

Revoking citizenship is not a penalty.

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.

[dragonwriter]

> Revoking citizenship is not a penalty.

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.

[amaccuish]

> Spies are working for a foreign government, just not declaring it.

You've changed the wording to fit your narrative. These spies were not diplomats. They had no immunity.

[perl4ever]

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.

[anigbrowl]

Let's revoke yours and see whether you think it's a penalty or not.