Agree that it doesn’t look good but it is legally possible and people do get citizenship so it isn’t preventing his move.
Citizenship test: Collective action required, or expect endless delays, years. Example of the effective lobbyng of people awaiting spousal sponsorship
- Thread starter piotrqc
- Start date
How are citizenship applications preventing spouses and their dependent children from being reunited? Asylum applications have also been delayed. The priority during this pandemic will always be to help those in Canada who plan on remaining in Canada. The only real losers are those that need Canadian citizenship to get certain jobs in Canada.
Actually someone in this forum got their card expedited. And yes, I have experience with the travel docs. If someone is desperate to travel then they can try that. It doesn’t matter what we think, it what the government thinks. And in their minds, people have options of their PR cards are expiring and they want to get new ones. I’m currently going through it myself as my test got canceled. I was hoping to avoid having to renew, but went ahead just in case.
Asylum seekers have a much greater need because of various extradition treaties between Canada and other countries. Also, your legal status as an asylum seeker triggers various other dependencies. So, yeah, they are in much greater need than people with business or personal travel needs.
To come back to the subject that interests us, and not to be distracted by negative and mean people who try to demoralize us at all costs, I would like to take up the idea already mentioned by a participant in this discussion, a very interesting idea and relevant and intelligent, we can even say `` strategic '':
Looking a bit at the NDP caucus team page, I noticed that they have been classified according to their specialties, some named '' critic '' or '' citic assistant '' for a specific topic, examples: Telecommunications, public security, economy, immigration, refugees and citizenship.
Here is the official website page with the information of each reviewer, and review assistant:
https://www.ndp.ca/team
The two people who interest us according to this page of the official site are:
- Jenny Kwan
Vancouver East
Critic for Housing, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Deputy Critic for Health
Email: jenny.kwan@parl.gc.ca
- Leah Gazan
Winnipeg Center
Critic for Families, Children and Social Development, Deputy Critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Email: Leah.Gazan@parl.gc.ca
Of course, contacting each of our federal MPs in our constituency is a good idea in general and I encourage it, but by doing some research we realize that MPs have different jobs, and they are not all familiar with the many IRCC processes, especially citizenship that interests us here.
Looking a bit at the NDP caucus team page, I noticed that they have been classified according to their specialties, some named '' critic '' or '' citic assistant '' for a specific topic, examples: Telecommunications, public security, economy, immigration, refugees and citizenship.
Here is the official website page with the information of each reviewer, and review assistant:
https://www.ndp.ca/team
The two people who interest us according to this page of the official site are:
- Jenny Kwan
Vancouver East
Critic for Housing, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Deputy Critic for Health
Email: jenny.kwan@parl.gc.ca
- Leah Gazan
Winnipeg Center
Critic for Families, Children and Social Development, Deputy Critic for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Email: Leah.Gazan@parl.gc.ca
The primary role of an MP is to represent the residents of their riding, to help with this they have a team of staffers so that when a query is asked of an MP and they are not familiar with the topic, it can be assigned to a staffer to respond to. I’m led to believe that many MPs have a staffer who is dedicated to immigration issues.
The back and forth regarding relative priorities in the government's approach to restoring this or that processing may have some academic significance for those interested in discussing Canadian immigration and citizenship policies generally, but for those interested in seeing IRCC get citizenship applications moving ahead sooner, rather than later, that is essentially an aside, of minimal relevance with a tendency to bog the discussion down with conflicting views about what the priorities should be. Again, perhaps an interesting question for some, but if this topic is really about what it purports to be about, the real questions have to do with what can be done to EFFECTIVELY move the ball forward, to encourage IRCC to pick up the pace in getting citizenship application processing going.
There is NO doubt the government is considering, at the least, relative priorities in its decisions about resuming this or that procedure or process. Arguments in opposition to that approach are in vain.
In particular:
OVERALL: the government is moving ahead with some matters sooner than others, and is almost certainly employing some assessment of priority in making the decisions about which matters to address sooner than others. We are aware of some aspects of this decision making. For example, the decision to proceed with asylum hearings before resuming knowledge of Canada testing for citizenship applicants. (For which many will see that as an easy call, while others here believe otherwise.)
In the meantime, in whatever ways individuals can engage in a positive way, even if that is simply following guidelines and basically staying safe, but also in more activist ways, it should help to encourage our government to make better progress in regards to important things like grant citizenship application processing . . . but of course not in ways that would be at the expense of public safety.
There is NO doubt the government is considering, at the least, relative priorities in its decisions about resuming this or that procedure or process. Arguments in opposition to that approach are in vain.
In particular:
-- the Canadian government is approaching the restoration or modification of processing particular matters in a manner that addresses some procedures sooner than others; some may disagree with the appropriateness of this, but that really is the only practical approach
-- -- this is taking place in the REAL WORLD, in real time, with an unprecedented global pandemic still raging
-- -- it is very likely, almost certain, the government is employing rational and reasonable criteria (that is, not going about this in an arbitrary or capricious manner) to determine the sequence in which matters are being addressed
-- -- this does not mean everyone will agree with the criteria, the relative weight of various factors, or the conclusions (it appears, for example, that @Dana.D and @piotrqc disagree with giving asylum hearings priority over resuming citizenship application knowledge of Canada testing)
-- -- moreover, this is quite likely driven by the assessment of the criteria generally, to groups or categories of actions, procedures, or types of applications, and most likely takes into consideration not just needs-factors but logistical elements affecting the practical implementation of the respective procedure
-- -- -- thus, it is NOT likely based on the needs or circumstances of individual people . . . and of course, even relative to a specific procedure for a particular type of application, the H&C side of the equation will vary greatly . . . so of course, there will be a disparate impact on some individuals
OVERALL: the government is moving ahead with some matters sooner than others, and is almost certainly employing some assessment of priority in making the decisions about which matters to address sooner than others. We are aware of some aspects of this decision making. For example, the decision to proceed with asylum hearings before resuming knowledge of Canada testing for citizenship applicants. (For which many will see that as an easy call, while others here believe otherwise.)
In the meantime, in whatever ways individuals can engage in a positive way, even if that is simply following guidelines and basically staying safe, but also in more activist ways, it should help to encourage our government to make better progress in regards to important things like grant citizenship application processing . . . but of course not in ways that would be at the expense of public safety.
Putting PR travel abroad in context:
I address this aspect of the discussion at the risk of wandering further from the primary objective (allegedly anyway, subject to suspicions I have previously expressed), that is to discuss and promote actions which might persuade IRCC to get going with citizenship applications sooner.
A discussion about PR travel abroad tends to be more about weighing priorities than about how to influence the government to get going on citizenship applications.
But there is a persistent misunderstanding about the nature and scope of Canadian immigration and citizenship policy relative to the rights of Permanent Residents to travel internationally.
I will NOT pretend to fully know or understand the criteria the government is employing in its decision-making, as to what procedures are being resumed, when or how. I do not know all the elements, let alone how they are factored into decision making.
But it does not demand much familiarity let alone expertise to see that the right of PRs to travel internationally is NOT a high priority for the Canadian government. While it is at least a significant and perhaps important aspect, and the PR Residency Obligation itself is clearly structured to accommodate a great deal of travel abroad by PRs, that's largely how Canadian law and policy approach this: it is structured to ACCOMMODATE, not support.
Note, for example, UNLIKE Canadian citizens, Canadian PRs have no NO Charter right protecting the right to travel internationally. That's a clue. A big clue.
But of course this is indeed a big factor in how important it is, at least for some and probably most by a big margin, to become a Canadian citizen. Regarding which some clarification is warranted: as important as this is to the individual, unless and until the individual is actually a citizen, extending the Charter to protect the individual's right to international travel is not applicable, does not elevate policy priorities respecting decisions affecting the individual PR, including a PR applying for citizenship.
This is offered for context. It is offered without any view about whether or not this is the way things should be. This is about the way it is. So that those who are still a PR can put their international travel plans, needs, aspirations, even their history, into context in making personal decisions for themselves. And so some can better understand why what is an important priority for them, personally, does not necessarily carry a lot of weight in the government's assessment of priorities.
So let's be clear: Again, Canadian immigration law and policy, and citizenship law as well, is structured to ACCOMMODATE international travel by PRs. It does not support or encourage it. It actually limits it. This is a matter in which understanding the difference between what the law ALLOWS versus what the law protects or supports, can help the individual put some of the rules, practices, and policies into perspective, which in turn can help some individuals make better decisions for themselves.
Like whether to go abroad for an extended period of time while a citizenship application is pending.
As noted, Canada's immigration laws, and indeed its policies as well, are structured to "ACCOMMODATE" international travel for PRs. This is more or less PERMISSIVE. Except for refugee-PRs, generally Canada does NOT provide PRs with Travel Documents . . . except very limited TDs that will facilitate a return to Canada by a Canadian PR abroad. Many in this forum erroneously refer to the PR card as a "Travel Document," but it is not a travel document. It is a "status" document. With some exceptions, a PR needs a valid Travel Document, usually a passport (such as a PR's home country passport), to travel internationally. The PR needs something more to board transportation to Canada, the PR's travel document (passport) PLUS either a valid status card (a PR card) or a special travel document issued specifically for the purpose of facilitating travel TO Canada.
Leading to . . .
Again, I am NOT suggesting anything at all about whether or not, or to what extent, this is how things should be. That is a complicated subject and would indeed be a total distraction here.
As often as I have interjected cautionary comments into the many topics here where going abroad while the citizenship application is pending is discussed, many participants still hang their hat on its legality, on it being, in essence, ALLOWED. Which not only falls well short of being the whole story, in many respects it is misleading.
In any event, any PR thinking their international travel needs will be a positive factor in how IRCC approaches their citizenship application probably should take a deep breath, step back, and take in the broader view. In their own interests.
And of course this most likely spills over into what might influence the government to allocate more resources to getting grant citizenship application processing fully going again. Perhaps individual PRs expressing the hardship not being a citizen imposes on international travel will have some positive influence, but this does not tend to be a winning hand.
I address this aspect of the discussion at the risk of wandering further from the primary objective (allegedly anyway, subject to suspicions I have previously expressed), that is to discuss and promote actions which might persuade IRCC to get going with citizenship applications sooner.
A discussion about PR travel abroad tends to be more about weighing priorities than about how to influence the government to get going on citizenship applications.
But there is a persistent misunderstanding about the nature and scope of Canadian immigration and citizenship policy relative to the rights of Permanent Residents to travel internationally.
I will NOT pretend to fully know or understand the criteria the government is employing in its decision-making, as to what procedures are being resumed, when or how. I do not know all the elements, let alone how they are factored into decision making.
But it does not demand much familiarity let alone expertise to see that the right of PRs to travel internationally is NOT a high priority for the Canadian government. While it is at least a significant and perhaps important aspect, and the PR Residency Obligation itself is clearly structured to accommodate a great deal of travel abroad by PRs, that's largely how Canadian law and policy approach this: it is structured to ACCOMMODATE, not support.
Note, for example, UNLIKE Canadian citizens, Canadian PRs have no NO Charter right protecting the right to travel internationally. That's a clue. A big clue.
But of course this is indeed a big factor in how important it is, at least for some and probably most by a big margin, to become a Canadian citizen. Regarding which some clarification is warranted: as important as this is to the individual, unless and until the individual is actually a citizen, extending the Charter to protect the individual's right to international travel is not applicable, does not elevate policy priorities respecting decisions affecting the individual PR, including a PR applying for citizenship.
This is offered for context. It is offered without any view about whether or not this is the way things should be. This is about the way it is. So that those who are still a PR can put their international travel plans, needs, aspirations, even their history, into context in making personal decisions for themselves. And so some can better understand why what is an important priority for them, personally, does not necessarily carry a lot of weight in the government's assessment of priorities.
So let's be clear: Again, Canadian immigration law and policy, and citizenship law as well, is structured to ACCOMMODATE international travel by PRs. It does not support or encourage it. It actually limits it. This is a matter in which understanding the difference between what the law ALLOWS versus what the law protects or supports, can help the individual put some of the rules, practices, and policies into perspective, which in turn can help some individuals make better decisions for themselves.
Like whether to go abroad for an extended period of time while a citizenship application is pending.
As noted, Canada's immigration laws, and indeed its policies as well, are structured to "ACCOMMODATE" international travel for PRs. This is more or less PERMISSIVE. Except for refugee-PRs, generally Canada does NOT provide PRs with Travel Documents . . . except very limited TDs that will facilitate a return to Canada by a Canadian PR abroad. Many in this forum erroneously refer to the PR card as a "Travel Document," but it is not a travel document. It is a "status" document. With some exceptions, a PR needs a valid Travel Document, usually a passport (such as a PR's home country passport), to travel internationally. The PR needs something more to board transportation to Canada, the PR's travel document (passport) PLUS either a valid status card (a PR card) or a special travel document issued specifically for the purpose of facilitating travel TO Canada.
Leading to . . .
Yep. The PR who goes abroad while the application is pending should be aware that even though there is nothing prohibiting it, no direct penalty for it, it is NOT PROTECTED, not encouraged, and involves RISKS. These I have addressed at length and in-depth in other topics . . . not to argue in favour of those policies or approaches, but to help PRs and citizenship applicants better navigate the system, to help them to see potential pitfalls and make better decisions for themselves, given how things actually work.
Again, I am NOT suggesting anything at all about whether or not, or to what extent, this is how things should be. That is a complicated subject and would indeed be a total distraction here.
As often as I have interjected cautionary comments into the many topics here where going abroad while the citizenship application is pending is discussed, many participants still hang their hat on its legality, on it being, in essence, ALLOWED. Which not only falls well short of being the whole story, in many respects it is misleading.
In any event, any PR thinking their international travel needs will be a positive factor in how IRCC approaches their citizenship application probably should take a deep breath, step back, and take in the broader view. In their own interests.
And of course this most likely spills over into what might influence the government to allocate more resources to getting grant citizenship application processing fully going again. Perhaps individual PRs expressing the hardship not being a citizen imposes on international travel will have some positive influence, but this does not tend to be a winning hand.
I am going to write to my local MP and I urge everyone to do the same.
All sectors are open and people are working from home or taking turns going to office. This pandemic is not going anywhere anytime soon (I am an epidemiologist and I know). It does not make any logical sense that IRCC is not processing citizenship applications while we are working full time and paying our taxes. Imagine if RCMP or Canadian Security Intelligence Service (who also deal with sensitive data) saying they will not perform their normal functioning because of pandemic? Then why is IRCC special?
In my case, my passport will expire and I cannot afford to take a flight and go to my origin country to pay bribe to the local officials there to renew my passport (Yes corruption is rampant there). Normal citizenship test wait time was 1 year, with the pandemic, it will be impossible to know when we will get to write the test after waiting for the last 1 year after application.
This was in the news in August 2020 where people are asking the government to remove the citizenship application fees:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-fees-liberal-campaign-promise-pandemic-1.5686395
We already paid our fees, met all the citizenship requirements, waited the 1 year wait period and still can't write test?
The province trust kids to go back to school in September. IRCC cannot figure out how to have adults with mask write citizenship test? Come on!
All sectors are open and people are working from home or taking turns going to office. This pandemic is not going anywhere anytime soon (I am an epidemiologist and I know). It does not make any logical sense that IRCC is not processing citizenship applications while we are working full time and paying our taxes. Imagine if RCMP or Canadian Security Intelligence Service (who also deal with sensitive data) saying they will not perform their normal functioning because of pandemic? Then why is IRCC special?
In my case, my passport will expire and I cannot afford to take a flight and go to my origin country to pay bribe to the local officials there to renew my passport (Yes corruption is rampant there). Normal citizenship test wait time was 1 year, with the pandemic, it will be impossible to know when we will get to write the test after waiting for the last 1 year after application.
This was in the news in August 2020 where people are asking the government to remove the citizenship application fees:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-fees-liberal-campaign-promise-pandemic-1.5686395
We already paid our fees, met all the citizenship requirements, waited the 1 year wait period and still can't write test?
The province trust kids to go back to school in September. IRCC cannot figure out how to have adults with mask write citizenship test? Come on!
Most of the jobs are remote work now and you can explain the situation to your manager, that it's urgent. That's what I'd do anyway, I would hate for my citizenship process to be delayed by who knows how many months, just because my manager didn't approve for me to leave for a couple weeks.
Just give me a reason . Schools are going to be opened, Driving tests are being taken, all other academic tests in the fields of Medicine, Engineering or etc have been started either in-site or online. Why should Citizenship tests still are suspended? why IRCC cannot manage it?
That is a million dollars question we are all asking.Just give me a reason . Schools are going to be opened, Driving tests are being taken, all other academic tests in the fields of Medicine, Engineering or etc have been started either in-site or online. Why should Citizenship tests still are suspended? why IRCC cannot manage it?