My question is, if I got any government assistant will that affect my future citizenship application? Given that I will be applying for citizenship in 2.5 years.
I have read before that welfare affects citizenship somehow but does that with hold now??.
I agree with comments assuring you this is not an issue.
But I will offer some further observations relevant to such queries generally:
Anything and everything can "affect" how things go in processing a citizenship application. Trying to map a particular effect resulting from isolated details, however, is like describing details in a landscape while blindfolded.
Which is to acknowledge NOT collecting a benefit one is entitled to can, just as much, "affect" the impressions made and the resulting scrutiny employed in processing a citizenship application.
Neither (collecting or not collecting), however, is at all likely to have more than a miniscule effect, and any effort to micro-manage one's life trying to forecast how such details will affect a future application for citizenship is bound to be a futile exercise, a distraction, not at all helpful.
The whole picture matters. All the individual parts of the picture determine what the whole picture looks like, and how all the individual parts relate to one another either supports a coherent whole picture or exposes inconsistencies or incongruities. Trying to, in effect, control the whole picture by micro-managing this or that individual part, is probably more likely to result in at least some incongruity, and potentially raise flags, than it is likely to help.
The best approach is to live and work in Canada, keeping the usual records a person living in Canada ordinarily keeps, and also keeping a precise, complete, and accurate record of all dates of exit from Canada and all dates of entry. And wait to apply with a good margin over the minimum.
Other than the obvious (like deciding whether to take a job outside Canada), trying to make decisions based on what the impact might be on a future citizenship application is a fool's errand . . . after all, apart from meeting the actual requirements, the biggest influence in how it goes in processing a citizenship application is the applicant's credibility, regarding which consistency and the absence of incongruity loom large. That is, decisions consistent with the life being lived in Canada are far less likely to trigger questions or concerns than decisions which might seem inconsistent or artificial.
It's not a written rule per se, it's a hidden rule, like the one involving extensive travel. Nothing says it affects on paper but it sometimes puts the application under scrutiny.
There are no "
hidden rules" as such. But there are confidential, or secret criteria employed for evaluating the applicant and the information an applicant submits in the citizenship application. Regarding which there is lots and lots of misinformation floating about.
Since such criteria is secret, obviously we do not know precisely what the criteria is. It is likely, nonetheless, the criteria currently employed is at least somewhat similar to that listed in an appendix to what was previously employed, listing
reasons-to-question-residency, in the no longer used Operational Manual CP 5 "Residence," and that listed in a leaked version of the File Requirements Checklist, referred to as "
triage criteria," nearly a decade ago now. Almost all of which was largely common sense, in general terms, even though the precise details are secret. Omissions or discrepancies in reported travel history, for example, is a rather obvious common-sense
reason-to-question the applicant's presence, but IRCC recognizes everyone makes some mistakes, so not every mistake in the travel history will, for example, trigger RQ . . . so we know that mistakes in travel history can trigger RQ but we do not know the precise criteria currently employed. For example, in 2012, two or more discrepancies, or a total discrepancy of more than . . . I forget how many days it was, not many . . . would trigger RQ; we know this changed and that it is less strict now, but we do not know the precise details. For another example, in 2012 any travel abroad during a period of time the applicant reported being self-employed or employed as a "consultant," would trigger RQ, and here too we know this has been changed, and appears to be way, way less strict now.
For an example of another sort, it is worth noting that "
extensive travel" can actually be a strong positive factor for some applicants. In contrast, little or no travel abroad can invite questions or concerns. As I noted before, a lot depends on what appears to be CONSISTENT, NOT INCONGRUOUS, for who the applicant is and the life the applicant has been living. The pattern of travel for a middle-aged PR who teaches at university will likely vary considerably compared to the pattern of travel for a young PR employed working on an assembly line in a manufacturing facility. Multiple periods of time spent abroad for months at a time would be consistent with the life of many university professors. An assembly line worker reporting multiple "holidays" abroad for three months at a time, not so much.
Common-sense.
Which generally should not need explaining let alone emphasizing. But this forum is rife with discussions focused on isolated details as if there is some direct correlation between this or that detail and how it might influence the processing of a citizenship application. Not how things work.
