Who deserves citizenship is determined by the law. Those who meet the legal requirements for citizenship deserve it. To say anything else is to wade into the field of politics, which is quite unlike you Dpenabill.
The law prescribes who is qualified. The law says nothing about who deserves citizenship.
Politics imbued with views about who deserves citizenship probably play a big role in what the law prescribes, what a legislative body decides the law to be; for example, Harper saw those
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport as especially undeserving, so Bill C-24 included an intent to reside provision that would make it more difficult for many or most such applicants to qualify for citizenship.
In any event, while who deserves citizenship generally can be a political issue, that goes to what law the government adopts and implements, what specific requirements are imposed.
In contrast I was using "deserves" here relative to whether a particular individual deserves citizenship apart from being technically qualified for citizenship. This is using "deserves" in an equitable or moral worthiness sense. A very vague concept, admittedly, but frankly I am confident most people know very well what I referring to. And it should be obvious that I am not talking about how decisions should be made. I am talking about the fact that if the bureaucrat making the decision gets a negative impression about the applicant, gets the feeling the applicant does not deserve to be a Canadian citizen, that will likely be a huge factor in how things go.
As I said, anyone who does not recognize this, that the impression they make can have a big influence in how a total stranger bureaucrat assesses the case, is a fool. A real fool.
This is true in virtually any venue. From how class room teachers grade students to how judges in official judicial proceedings make decisions, from how the arbiter in a worker's disability claim assesses the claimant to how a Citizenship Officer sees the evidence of physical presence in a grant citizenship application.
For example: It is one thing to be playing the technicalities to one's advantage. It is another to overtly appear as if manipulating the technicalities in order to take advantage. The latter invites the decision-maker to perceive the applicant as less deserving. If the case is solid, no damage done. If there is room for making a judgment call, to appear less deserving is one of those factors which can tip the scales hard.