will citizenship rule change in 2020?

[fr72]

You reeeaaaallly need to scale down on the hyperbole. The reality in Canada is that of the rule of law, of the separation of power, of an independent judiciary, of a charter of rights and freedoms, of a written constitution (unlike the UK), and of the fact that democracy does not imply the dictatorship of the majority.

In fact, simply check out the Supreme Court Case in 2017 regarding revocation of citizenship, which is a superb example how an overstepping legislature and government was stopped by the highest court and specific parts of the Citizenship Act regarding revocation of citizenship were repealed. That is, by the way, exactly what "separation of power" and "independent judiciary" means.

So no matter the election outcome (which no one can predict), rest assured that Canada can't just exile citizens, no matter if naturalized or born in Canada. So let's all take it down a notch, shall we?

This isn't the wild west, this is Canada.

Edit: Source regarding the Supreme Court Case that I mentioned:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/federal-court-voids-canadian-citizenship-revocation-for-312-people/article35675424/
"The Federal Court has nullified government attempts to strip Canadian citizenship from more than 300 people after an earlier judgment struck down key provisions of the Citizenship Act introduced by the former Conservative government under Stephen Harper."

The world has changed. Maybe you don't see it because I am guessing you are German? Some of us dont belong to privileged classes. Back in 2015, people laughed at me when I said Trump would be president and white nationalism is back. But I am well aware of the intentions of the hardcore base of right wing parties across the western world. Every deranged comment I read in alt-right websites comes out of the mouth of the US administration the next day. It's not hard to imagine the same in Canada.

I agree that this xenophobia is not the view of the majority, but in Canada only 30% votes are enough to get a majority with a split left. Conservatives now control most provinces. Together with a federal government, they will be in a position to change the Charter. Between Doug Ford using the Notwithstanding clause and the Quebec govt cracking down on minorities, its pretty clear that the Cons will go to any lengths to ram through their ideologies.

I come from a country where checks and balances can be easily subverted by a tyrannical government. I used to think that this cant happen in mature democracies, but that illusion has been shattered since 2016.

 

[fr72]

Scheer might win. If or if not, nobody knows.

However the statement "he will certainly revert the citizenship rules" is wrong. At the moment the CPC has not indicated that this is a priority for them. Most importantly, the election platform hasn't been published yet. So any claim that a CPC government would "certainly" do anything is, at the moment, incorrect.

Certain = "Able to be firmly relied on to happen or be the case."

Since when do we trust a CPC platform? Look at the Doug Ford playbook. They wont have anything anti immigrant in the platform, we will find out only after they are elected.

 

[Jayson]

What was the need to start this thread? How is this helping anyone?

 

[dpenabill]

his paragraph says everything. C-24 opened up the possibility of an interpretation that would lead to mass revocation of citizenships of naturalized citizens. It's very easy to see that the law would be interpreted to allow for revocation based on intent prior to applying for citizenship.

Not really. Notwithstanding vociferous ranting otherwise.

The intent provision was specifically a Harper government tool to deny citizenship to applicants who moved abroad while their application was pending. That's what it was designed to do. It was based on the assumption that those who came to Canada and stayed just the minimum amount of time it takes to meet the qualifications for citizenship are likely seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. And precluding the grant of citizenship to those seeking-a-passport-of-convenience was of much importance to the Harper government.

While you may not see anything wrong with playing the Canadian immigration system in order to obtain a-passport-of-convenience, you are the one who is being naïve if you fail to recognize that most Canadians, probably by a significant margin, do . . . the main difference is in to what extent they think the law should make it difficult. As I noted, historically Conservatives tend to favour a far more strict approach that makes it more difficult for a much larger number of applicants than those who are playing the system. Historically the Liberals are more willing to employ a less strict approach in order to better accommodate applicants in widely varying scenarios.

In any event, there is no cosmic right or wrong at play. This is about what immigration policies the Canadian people choose to have.

Back to the intent-to-reside provision, the prospect that the Federal Courts would allow, let alone validate, an interpretation that would in effect compromise the charter rights of Canadian citizens, naturalized or otherwise, is simply far-fetched. While the Conservatives tend to be the primary perpetrators of fear-mongering, the other political parties in Canada are not above leveraging exaggerated fears when it suits their political messaging. Nature of the beast. While I respect the efforts Lorne Waldman has made on behalf of immigrants, over the years, especially on behalf of refugees, on this particular issue he not only was wrong but he badly abused the rhetoric.



The FEDERAL ELECTION:

As for what will happen in the coming Federal election, we are still a long, long way from having anywhere near a clear view about how it is going to go . . . except to recognize that the Liberals are clearly in big trouble. Which is obviously good news for Scheer and company.

At this phase of the last Federal election it looked like it was going to be a close race between the NDP and the Conservatives, and virtually no prospect of any party obtaining a majority, the front runner being the NDP and Tom Mulcair (it appearing to be Mulcair's to lose, and lose he did, big time), let alone result in a majority for a party (the Liberals) which was neither the government nor the official opposition at the time. But Stuff Happens. Especially in Canada's elections.

But, again, the one clear indication is that the Liberals are in serious trouble. The Liberals did NOT win a SINGLE seat in the recent Alberta election. NOT ONE SEAT. And in the PEI election just this week, the Liberals went from being the party in government to not even being the official opposition, and indeed barely got HALF the number of seats the official opposition party got. If anything, support for the Liberals in Ontario, their main stronghold, has declined since the Conservatives won a majority government in the Province just last year. The trends are loud, like a train roaring down the tracks, already having left the station.

I do not take any pleasure in these observations. I am repulsed by most of the Conservative party leadership at both the Federal and Provincial level. To my view, as just one example, Jason Kenney, the current Premier of Alberta, represents a brand of Conservative politics that is deeply rooted in the same soil as many American conservatives, for whom I have nothing but contempt. While Kenney was the Minister of CIC he implemented some of the most severe, draconian policies and practices imaginable. Under his reign at CIC not only were there major abuses of procedural fairness imposed on tens and tens of thousands of FSW applicants, who had had applications in queue for years, but he was the Minister who implemented OB-407, which nearly brought the granting of citizenship to a standstill (Benjamin Perrin, a close advisor to Harper, was probably the architect of that, but Kenney was the one who directed how it was actually implemented . . . for a time just being a housewife or student was a reason to issue RQ).

 

[fr72]

Not really. Notwithstanding vociferous ranting otherwise.

The intent provision was specifically a Harper government tool to deny citizenship to applicants who moved abroad while their application was pending. That's what it was designed to do. It was based on the assumption that those who came to Canada and stayed just the minimum amount of time it takes to meet the qualifications for citizenship are likely seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. And precluding the grant of citizenship to those seeking-a-passport-of-convenience was of much importance to the Harper government.

While you may not see anything wrong with playing the Canadian immigration system in order to obtain a-passport-of-convenience, you are the one who is being naïve if you fail to recognize that most Canadians, probably by a significant margin, do . . . the main difference is in to what extent they think the law should make it difficult. As I noted, historically Conservatives tend to favour a far more strict approach that makes it more difficult for a much larger number of applicants than those who are playing the system. Historically the Liberals are more willing to employ a less strict approach in order to better accommodate applicants in widely varying scenarios.

In any event, there is no cosmic right or wrong at play. This is about what immigration policies the Canadian people choose to have.

Back to the intent-to-reside provision, the prospect that the Federal Courts would allow, let alone validate, an interpretation that would in effect compromise the charter rights of Canadian citizens, naturalized or otherwise, is simply far-fetched. While the Conservatives tend to be the primary perpetrators of fear-mongering, the other political parties in Canada are not above leveraging exaggerated fears when it suits their political messaging. Nature of the beast. While I respect the efforts Lorne Waldman has made on behalf of immigrants, over the years, especially on behalf of refugees, on this particular issue he not only was wrong but he badly abused the rhetoric.



The FEDERAL ELECTION:

As for what will happen in the coming Federal election, we are still a long, long way from having anywhere near a clear view about how it is going to go . . . except to recognize that the Liberals are clearly in big trouble. Which is obviously good news for Scheer and company.

At this phase of the last Federal election it looked like it was going to be a close race between the NDP and the Conservatives, and virtually no prospect of any party obtaining a majority, the front runner being the NDP and Tom Mulcair (it appearing to be Mulcair's to lose, and lose he did, big time), let alone result in a majority for a party (the Liberals) which was neither the government nor the official opposition at the time. But Stuff Happens. Especially in Canada's elections.

But, again, the one clear indication is that the Liberals are in serious trouble. The Liberals did NOT win a SINGLE seat in the recent Alberta election. NOT ONE SEAT. And in the PEI election just this week, the Liberals went from being the party in government to not even being the official opposition, and indeed barely got HALF the number of seats the official opposition party got. If anything, support for the Liberals in Ontario, their main stronghold, has declined since the Conservatives won a majority government in the Province just last year. The trends are loud, like a train roaring down the tracks, already having left the station.

I do not take any pleasure in these observations. I am repulsed by most of the Conservative party leadership at both the Federal and Provincial level. To my view, as just one example, Jason Kenney, the current Premier of Alberta, represents a brand of Conservative politics that is deeply rooted in the same soil as many American conservatives, for whom I have nothing but contempt. While Kenney was the Minister of CIC he implemented some of the most severe, draconian policies and practices imaginable. Under his reign at CIC not only were there major abuses of procedural fairness imposed on tens and tens of thousands of FSW applicants, who had had applications in queue for years, but he was the Minister who implemented OB-407, which nearly brought the granting of citizenship to a standstill (Benjamin Perrin, a close advisor to Harper, was probably the architect of that, but Kenney was the one who directed how it was actually implemented . . . for a time just being a housewife or student was a reason to issue RQ).

I dont know why you insist that the intent to reside cannot be interpreted to revoke an already granted citizenship. Let me explain step by step:

1. Applicant says they intent to reside.
2. Applicant is granted citizenship.
3. Applicant moves abroad for whatever reason.
4. Govt finds evidence that applicant had intention to move abroad - foreign visa application, etc.
5. Govt decides that applicant lied about intent to reside to get citizenship, which is same as lying about residence days, english ability, etc.
6. Gove revoked citizenship on basis of fraud.

Why couldnt this have happened under C-24? Citizenship can be revoked for fraud even now if its found that applicant lied about one or more pre requisites for citizenship.

Clearly you are aware of the draconian nature of the CPC. I dont know why you give them a pass on this.

The fact that Canadians oppose citizenship of convenience only solidifies my fears about the permanence of this 'citizenship'. What is it they object to? That immigrants get citizenship, move away and come back to use free healthcare? Or the fact that 3rd world citizens use Canadian passport to globe trot? (not sure what is wrong with this). There has to be some underlying reason for them to oppose. What is that underlying reason? In what way do they think that immigrants abuse the system? What material harm comes to Canada if an immigrant gets citizenship in 3 years and moves away? Apart from the healthcare thing, I havent read of any specific harm. And it can be easily fixed without throwing the baby out with bathwater.


As for the election, I expect a Conservative landslide, just my opinion.

 

[dpenabill]

For those who might be moving abroad after applying, and who will be applying for citizenship in the coming months, and especially those applying after that, it could be important to recognize that personal opinions aside, being abroad while the application is pending could once again be more risky than it has been of late.

It is at least somewhat risky now. Remember, for example, being abroad is generally NOT an acceptable reason for failing to appear for a scheduled oath. That alone imposes some risk. (Missing the oath can happen to anyone . . . let alone someone living abroad who does not get notice in time.)

On the other hand, in the last few years it appears the current government does not much care if an applicant is living abroad while the application is pending. This is something a different government could change overnight, without notice. It cannot make being abroad a ground for denying citizenship, not without going through the legislative process to change the law itself. BUT it can implement policies and practices which increases the risks and makes the process more difficult.

Beyond that, contrary to the opinion of some, there is a BIG difference between the status of a person the DAY before the oath is taken versus the day after. This is not about mere technicalities.

The following addresses this in the context of how it affects travel rights BUT make no mistake, the difference looms large in multiple respects. Consider the difference between having a few drinks and being involved in an automobile accident resulting in injuries the night before taking the oath, versus this happening the night after taking the oath. Huge difference. The former does not get to become a citizen, not for some time anyway, and might even face the loss of PR status altogether.

Also, this matter of leaving BEFORE or AFTER getting the citizenship to me is immaterial. If you are person who believes in restricting freedoms of naturalized citizens, this 1 yr or so gap hardly makes a difference and is merely a technicality.

To be clear, Permanent Residents are NOT Canadian citizens. Any restrictions imposed on PRs international travel has NOTHING to do with restricting the freedom of citizens, naturalized or otherwise.

That is, the fact you find the distinction to be immaterial is, well, immaterial. There is a major distinction in the law.

Permanent Residents are NOT Canadian citizens . . . even on the morning they are scheduled to take the oath and become a citizen. This is NO mere technicality. For example, there have been actual cases in which PRs scheduled to take the oath who were living abroad, while the application was pending, who arrived at the ceremony only to find out their taking the oath was cancelled . . . triggered by the fact of their absence from Canada in the meantime. (Will address this more below.)

Moreover, there is an explicit distinction in the Charter as to the travel rights of PRs versus citizens. PRs have a charter right to travel WITHIN Canada. In contrast, the Charter of Rights specifically protects the rights of citizens (and NOT PRs) to travel abroad and return to Canada. And again, to be clear, this distinction applies right up to the moment someone takes the oath.

Thus, again, while the distinction between provisions restricting travel rights for PRs, which of course includes PRs applying for citizenship, versus those who are already citizens (again, naturalized or otherwise) may be immaterial to you, it is NOT immaterial in the law . . . not only is there a definitive difference in the applicable statutory provisions, the difference looms large in the Charter of Rights itself.


As I noted above, Permanent Residents are NOT Canadian citizens . . . even on the morning they are scheduled to take the oath and become a citizen. And again this is NO mere technicality.

There are multiple ways in which this can become a significant issue arising in the processing of a citizenship application.

I have mentioned one, the fact that when a person is living abroad that in itself evidences strong residential ties abroad, thus potentially raising questions about the veracity of the applicant's claims about days present in Canada. As discussed elsewhere, for example, when an applicant has a spouse who is living abroad during the eligibility period, that inherently invites questions about that applicant's travel history . . . it is reasonable to apprehend that spouses are more likely to be living together, so the fact that one was living abroad is reason to question the extent to which the one claiming to have been in Canada might have been, instead, abroad with the spouse some of that time. Bottom-line: the more residential or employment ties abroad an applicant has, the more likely a total stranger bureaucrat will reasonably make further inquiry into the veracity of the applicant's presence-claims.

I have also mentioned another, which is more apparent in how the Harper-era CIC approached citizenship applicants, and that is their perception that applicants who came to Canada just barely long enough to meet the minimum presence requirement, and then left, are likely to be seeking-a-passport-of-convenience and thus more likely to be playing the Canadian immigration system, thus more likely to be fudging the facts, at least enough so to warrant elevated scrutiny (like RQ).

The fact that a citizenship applicant is living abroad while the application is pending can also have bearing on meeting the most fundamental requirement for grant citizenship: having valid PR status (not being inadmissible). This does not loom much currently since even the longer non-routine processing timelines tend to be well less than three years, but in the past when the processing timeline for many well exceeded two years and was longer than three years for more than a few, there were cases in which PRs applying for citizenship failed to stay in compliance with the PR Residency Obligation while their application was pending. Some were scheduled to take the oath. But upon arriving at the ceremony, they were instead deferred for further processing, some being reported for inadmissibility, due to a breach of the PR RO, and issued a Removal Order (thereby losing PR status in addition to NOT becoming a citizen). Others were issued RQ.

The reason this still looms as potentially relevant is at least twofold. One is that processing timelines are now, again, getting longer and longer . . . and especially so for those involved in non-routine processing. Thus, once again some of those who moved abroad while their application was pending may indeed face RO compliance issues before they get to take the oath. But perhaps the more ominous peril lurks in a potential shift in policy and practice, if for example there is a Conservative government by year's end, which could resume measures aimed at targeting applicants who are PERCEIVED to be applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or otherwise seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. . . . recognizing that neither would be a ground for denying citizenship, but also recognizing such PERCEPTION can lead to non-routine processing, RQ, and otherwise elevated scrutiny and skepticism, which could pose significant difficulties for such applicants.

While it was never actually established, many suspected that when Kenney and Alexander were the Minister (under Harper), there was deliberate stalling of applications if processing agents PERCEIVED the applicant was applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport or otherwise seeking-a-passport-of-convenience. . . . dragging the process out so long that applicants living abroad would indeed run into trouble complying with the PR RO.

Again, while the distinction may be immaterial in your mind, that will be of little or no comfort to those who run into problems because this distinction is material in the law and it may loom significantly so in multiple respects for IRCC processing agents.

 

[Seym]

This thread should have ended with a short answer. A 2 letters one : "No".
As for the long discussion that followed, hope no-one here goes to sleep fearing deportation for no reason in August 2035.
Relax.

 

[fr72]

When I said its immaterial, I didnt mean that there is no difference between a PR and a citizen. Of course I know that there is a big difference.

Let me explain what I mean by immaterial. Imagine a xenophobe govt official who doesn't like naturalized citizens having the same right of global mobility that natural born Canadians do. In this position, this xenophobe would be equally willing under C-24 to revoke the citizenship of a naturalized citizen who left 1 day after receiving citizenship and someone who left 1 day after applying for citizenship.

I am not worried about PRs getting delayed in their applications. Worst case, they can just come back to Canada. I am talking about 10-20 years after citizenship has been granted and a Trump on steroids is PM of Canada. This Trump on steroids wont care whether this person left after applying for citizenship or left after getting citizenship. In that respect, its immaterial.

 

[foodie69]

As for the election, I expect a Conservative landslide, just my opinion.

Agree..too many people are unhappy with Trudeau.

 

[dpenabill]

I dont know why you insist that the intent to reside cannot be interpreted to revoke an already granted citizenship. Let me explain step by step:

1. Applicant says they intent to reside.
2. Applicant is granted citizenship.
3. Applicant moves abroad for whatever reason.
4. Govt finds evidence that applicant had intention to move abroad - foreign visa application, etc.
5. Govt decides that applicant lied about intent to reside to get citizenship, which is same as lying about residence days, english ability, etc.
6. Gove revoked citizenship on basis of fraud.

Why couldnt this have happened under C-24? Citizenship can be revoked for fraud even now if its found that applicant lied about one or more pre requisites for citizenship.

Clearly you are aware of the draconian nature of the CPC. I dont know why you give them a pass on this.

The fact that Canadians oppose citizenship of convenience only solidifies my fears about the permanence of this 'citizenship'. What is it they object to? That immigrants get citizenship, move away and come back to use free healthcare? Or the fact that 3rd world citizens use Canadian passport to globe trot? (not sure what is wrong with this). There has to be some underlying reason for them to oppose. What is that underlying reason? In what way do they think that immigrants abuse the system? What material harm comes to Canada if an immigrant gets citizenship in 3 years and moves away? Apart from the healthcare thing, I havent read of any specific harm. And it can be easily fixed without throwing the baby out with bathwater.


As for the election, I expect a Conservative landslide, just my opinion.

As I previously posted, the idea that the Federal Courts would allow, let alone validate, an interpretation which in effect amounted to the revocation of citizenship because a naturalized citizen moved abroad is FAR-FETCHED.

No pass to anyone intended or necessary. See post by @spyfy regarding Canada being a rule of law country.

Your outline conflates actual fraud with the fear-mongering rhetoric that the intent-to-reside provision could be employed to, in effect, punish naturalized citizens who move abroad after becoming a citizen. If there is actual evidence the applicant misrepresented their intention, DUH!, that is fraud. And grounds for revoking citizenship.

That said, here too there is NO doubt, the Canadian courts would demand definitive proof of actual fraud . . . but sure, an application to another country in which the individual overtly expressed an intention to move to that country once he or she became a Canadian citizen, sure, that would be actual proof. Again, DUH!

Actual fraud has always been, and still is, a grounds for revoking a grant of naturalized citizenship.

Note this issue was discussed ad nauseam in this and other forums . . . over the course of YEARS, going back to early 2014. It was rare for anyone to change their views about it. I addressed this issue, myself, many many times and in much depth, with lots and lots of citations to principles articulated by not just the Federal Courts but the Supreme Court of Canada. For what that was worth. Again, I have no doubts about this and that has nothing to do with giving anyone a pass, least of all the Conservatives who I do NOT trust at all . . . but whose power is restrained by the rule of law . . . at least for now . . . but sure, I acknowledge there are ominous clouds looming on the horizon . . . and I too was among an isolated, and at the time mocked minority, who even in the summer of 2015 was warning about the potential for Donald Trump to actually be nominated, and if nominated possibly POTUS . . . I long ago adopted the skepticism and cynicism expressed by gonzo journalist Hunter Thompson, especially views he expressed in his book about politics Better Than Sex. So sure, I have much fear about the future. Given my age, though, it is not likely I will get to see all that much of it.

 

[fr72]

This thread should have ended with a short answer. A 2 letters one : "No".
As for the long discussion that followed, hope no-one here goes to sleep fearing deportation for no reason in August 2035.
Relax.

Have you heard about the Windrush scandal in the UK? Anything is possible to certain types of immigrants any number of decades after getting citizenship.

 

[Seym]

Have you heard about the Windrush scandal in the UK? Anything is possible to certain types of immigrants any number of decades after getting citizenship.

I did. Very specific to UK and its colonial past.
Doesn't change much.

 

[spyfy]

Since when do we trust a CPC platform? Look at the Doug Ford playbook. They wont have anything anti immigrant in the platform, we will find out only after they are elected.

I never said I trust the CPC platform. I was criticizing the statement that Scheer will "certainly" change the rules. This is still a false statement. I am saying he might or he might not. I am just criticizing the claim that he will "certainly" do so. Again, it is the word "certainly" I am criticizing nothing more.

I fully agree with your assessment that you shouldn't trust the CPC platform even if it existed already. Which is, again, an argument why "certainly" was an ill-advised word.

 

[spyfy]

What was the need to start this thread? How is this helping anyone?

There aren't many places to vent because, despite all the great things about Canadian commons and customs, discussing politics is kind of a taboo. This forum right here is one of the small number of places where a lot of people who care about Canadian immigration come together and are willing to discuss it.

While I might not agree with many things that @fr72 says, I understand why he/she wants to voice their concerns somewhere. Similarly I am voicing mine. Because there aren't many places where you can.

 

[fr72]

I did. Very specific to UK and its colonial past.
Doesn't change much.

A racist conservative govt going after coloured immigrants. Its general enough for me.