The Extraordinary Statelessness of Deepan Budlakoti 9 citizenship deprivation” meant particularly to target citizens who have engaged in or are suspected of supporting terrorist activity (Forcese, 2014; Lenard, 2016; Macklin, 2014). Through strengthening the “security state,” many liberal democracies are now sliding down the slippery slope in extinguishment policies, beginning with naturalized citizens, continuing with dual citizens, then moving to birthright citizens in revocation directed at socalled “homegrown terrorists,” and finally countenancing such extinguishment even if the end product is statelessness.12 As Barbara Jackman, a lawyer specializing in immigration law has pointed out, the move to citizenship deprivation was preceded in Canadian immigration law by several reforms that diminished the rights of permanent residents to remain in Canada for reasons of criminality and national security and strengthened executive powers to remove permanent residents (Jackman, 2014). In the Canadian context, permanent residency has traditionally provided a broad range of citizenship-like rights, and often was seen as almost equivalent to Canadian citizenship. In the post-9/11 era, permanent residence had already become an increasingly precarious status.13 The Conservative government, under Stephen Harper (2006-2015), introduced significant reforms that render Canadian citizenship conditional on meeting new criteria for conduct. The rationale for fortifying two-tiered citizenship was couched in terms of protecting national security through “refusing citizenship to individuals who pose a security risk,” and reinforcing the “value” of Canadian citizenship by making it harder to acquire and retain, and easier to revoke (Government of Canada, 2014b). In June 2015, the federal government’s Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act came into effect, permitting the stripping of citizenship, not only among naturalized Canadians but also among those born in Canada holding a second nationality. Moreover, the law’s reach has been interpreted by some critics as applying not only to dual nationals, but to those simply having the imputed ability to acquire a second nationality “in another state through a parent or more distant relative” (National Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association, 2014, pp. 17-18). As delineated below, this creates a “reverse 12 For a discussion of the trend in Europe and North America toward denationalization of citizens as a counter-terrorism strategy, manifesting the “securitization of citizenship” see the EUDO CITIZENSHIP Forum Debate (Macklin & Bauböck, 2015; see also Forcese, 2014; Macklin, 2014). 13 As non-citizens, permanent residents enjoy many but not all of the same rights as citizens; excluded are the right to vote and the right to travel abroad with a Canadian passport. Canadian citizens also enjoy privileged access to the Federal Public Service. The status of permanent residence is also more easily revocable than that of Canadian citizenship, leaving permanent residents more vulnerable to deportation. Thus, under sections 33 and 77 to 85 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, permanent residents, but not citizens, may be inadmissible to Canada if suspected of violating human rights, having membership within organized crime, or perceived to be a threat to national security. Those issued “security certificates” are subject to removal orders. Studies in Social Justice, Volume 11, Issue 1, 1-26, 2017