So, in what regard is this query illustrative; what does it illustrate?
It illustrates a lack of objectivity [and] points to an approach tethered to entitlement, as if an individual is entitled to a right prescribed by statute rather than recognizing, and approaching the process recognizing, that the grant of citizenship is a PRIVILEGE, as it has been very emphatically and definitively ruled by Canadian courts to be. Qualifying for citizenship is NOT akin to collecting points which automatically guarantee a specified reward. It is NOT akin to getting course credits toward earning a university degree.
This query illustrates looking at the process, including the rules and policies and qualifying elements, from a subjective, what-this-does-for-me perspective. This does not disqualify anyone. There is NO must-deserve-citizenship qualifying element. There is (currently) NO qualitative becoming-a-Canadian-citizen requirement. But make no mistake . . .
. . . Just because the intent-to-reside requirement has been removed does not eliminate the probable (not just possible but probable) negative influence it will have if IRCC perceives the applicant has an intent to NOT reside in Canada. An intent to not reside in Canada does NOT disqualify the applicant. BUT you can safely bet it is likely to elevate scrutiny and invite questions if not outright skepticism. Not good.
(follow link for full post)