Finally, for what they say that revising the immigration law retroactively is not possible, I would say it is a speculation to be nice, but rather a false claim.
This topic, you should take note, is about Citizenship Law governing applications for naturalized citizenship, NOT immigration law. Not sure what sort of law you practiced or legal education you had, perhaps purchased, but in most countries different laws make a difference. Canada included. Half-way competent lawyers generally manage to at least get in the ballpark of recognizing which law governs.
You are misrepresenting (that is lying) about what others have said here. No one says it is NOT POSSIBLE for the government to revise Citizenship Law in a way that would terminate the eligibility of qualified PRs, even if they have an application already in process. The point is that *possibility* is so remote, so FAR-FETCHED, that the effort to elevate such a possibility to a level warranting concern, particularly in the context of the current imbroglio (stalled processing of citizenship applications due to logistical rather than policy decisions), is blatant fear-mongering.
As I noted, for example, the Federal Courts have made decisions ruling that, in effect, Parliament can change citizenship law to literally take away the citizenship of a BORN-IN-CANADA citizen based on matters occurring BEFORE the change in law. The scope of what is *possible* is indeed staggering. But even the extremely draconian changes implemented by Harper's Conservative government (which did indeed proceed to initiate the process of revoking the citizenship of a born-in-Canada citizen, which ultimately did not happen because the Liberals soon were elected to a majority government, ceased pursuing that and many other similar cases, and then repealed the law that enabled the government to revoke even natural-born citizenship for acts occurring prior to the change in law) did not so much as hint of any suggestion that the government might so much as consider retroactive changes anywhere near close to an outside chance of changes affecting the statutory entitlement of qualified citizenship applicants with applications already in process . . .
. . . and, indeed, to the extent that the Harper government did adopt new and rather severe requirements for the grant of citizenship, it explicitly publicized its plans to do so
YEARS in advance of when they actually tabled the legislation, and did not actually table the Bill (that was Bill C-24) for more than SEVEN YEARS after Harper initially became Prime Minister, and the changes adopted did NOT have any impact on requirements for those who had pending applications . . . and gave those qualified under the prior law nearly a FULL YEAR more to get an application filed which would still be processed based on the more liberal, pre-Bill C-24 requirements. (Bill C-24 changes to eligibility criteria for grant citizenship became law, that is obtained Royal Assent, June 19, 2014, but transition provisions in the Bill allowed qualified PRs to continue applying for citizenship under the previous, less strict requirements, until June 10, 2015.)
As previously noted, those who hang their hat on mere possibility are typically doing so as a
tactic of
deception, attempting to elevate mere possibility to the status of a feasible prospect as a tool in fear-mongering.
Current Political Landscape:
I generally make an effort to steer my observations here well wide of current political opinion or rhetoric. Way too much speculation to be of much if any use for those trying to navigate the system, either with applications now in process or planning to soon apply. Way too prone to unfounded and bombastic exaggerations if not outright distortions more oriented to agenda than genuine discourse.
Which appears to be the case here. With an emphasis on distortion to advance an agenda.
And this too demands some push back. Notwithstanding all the noise Conservatives are making, and have been making, they still lag considerably in polling. Part of the noise includes claims the polling underestimates actual Conservative support, for which there was no more than a very thin sliver of evidence in the 2019 election (and which, however, was far more influenced by underestimates of NDP and BQ support). As I recall, it was actually the Liberal support that was underestimated early on in the polling for the 2019 election. In contrast, in the 2015 election the size of the Liberal victory in that election stunned many if not most. In any event, there is NO imminent threat of the Conservatives being poised to obtain a majority government if there is an election in the near future. Maybe. Nothing stronger than a mere maybe. (A minority government is a more realistic possibility, IF there is an election, but a minority government would NOT be able to make severe changes to either immigration or citizenship law.)
As recently as a few days ago sources with the NDP have been saying they think
"we will find it easy to vote in favor" of the current Trudeau government, and that is all the Trudeau government needs to prevail in a confidence vote.
Beyond that, though, the political impact of the Conservatives' rather severe revisions to both immigration law and citizenship law, under Harper's government, is considered one of the dominant factors leading to their shellacking in the 2015 elections. Notwithstanding their troubles with learning by experience, most indicators suggest they learned this lesson. Thus, even if there is a chance the Conservatives might obtain a majority government in an upcoming election, if there is one, the prospect of them moving to revive even a portion of what was repealed is very unlikely, and the prospect of pursuing the implementation of even more severe policies is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. And the prospect of them revising grant citizenship requirements which would render those qualified applicants with applications currently in process no longer eligible is, again, at the very most, FAR-FETCHED.
BUT HERE's the RUB (and a big part of why the fear-mongering here deserves push-back):
As noted before, there are indeed REAL ISSUES. REAL PROBLEMS. And as anyone paying any attention knows,
bureaucracy is what bureaucracy does, and that generally does NOT include being particularly sensitive to changing needs or expeditiously responding to changing circumstances.
The fear-mongering, the lack of a connection between the perceived problem (which is real, which is the ongoing delay in reasonably getting processing back on track) and the bogey-man problem (the bogus threat that without taking to the streets, qualified applicants will get their applications returned), the focus on
ME-MAKE-NOISE (kind of
look-at-me oriented) actions rather than exploring ways to actually encourage IRCC to do better, are far more likely to be a distraction than help. And, in general, this approach to advocacy tends to hurt activism and advocacy, tending to tarnish the cause rather than advance it.
Which anyone who actually has anywhere near a decent education in law would be well acquainted with . . . suggesting a rather obvious inference relative to claims made here.
BUT yes, there are compelling reasons for those affected, and those who care, to engage in REALISTIC, CONSTRUCTIVE discourse, and evaluate prospective means to encourage the government to more promptly and diligently take action to resume a more normal level of application processing, sooner rather than later. (But let's be clear, advocating systemic changes based on what New Zealand or the U.S. or Australia is doing is NOT going to move the needle in Canada. Those discussions tend to be a distraction. And the nature of those arguments here suggests that is perhaps the deliberate intent.)
Which brings this back to "
mobilize today" and "
make noise" because pending applications might be summarily rejected (returned) being urged here . . . including a daily email campaign.
One might suspect a ruse at play here. Like Russian internet troll operations seeding divisiveness in the U.S.
I recall dealing with phony activist colleagues going back a half century. Pushing extremes based on bogus reasons was a typical tactic of government plants or other nefarious operatives. Inciting trouble . . . the objective was often to push our activism in a direction that would invite a more strident backlash.
The main thing, the important thing, is to not get distracted. For those with applications in process, your primary concern is with advocating your own case. Intelligently. Reasonably. Because that is what works better. And especially do not fall victim to the threat that there is any impending prospect of the law changing resulting in your application no longer being valid.
By the way:
It is my impression there is very little, if much at all, in the platform advanced by the newly elected leader of the Conservative Party, Erin O'Toole, that pushes changes hostile to immigrants; NO hint of an impending effort to significantly, let alone dramatically, let alone drastically change the requirements for citizenship. (Sidebar: for my vote, to be clear, unless and until the Conservatives are rendered a minor party of little import, I will prioritize strategic voting toward minimizing their chances of forming a government.)
