Will upcoming elections effect my chances of getting PR?

[armoured]

This may sound minor but I'd personally support the idea that grant of citizenship should only be done while in Canada. The entire process. Still resident in Canada. Pause applications while anyone out of country. This file-for-citizenship-on-the-way-out - or having already left - is crazy.

Including for minors, by the way - I was surprised to read one case of someone who was proud that they'd been able to get citizenship for their child by sponsoring the kid and then getting citizenship - and the child spent less than 72 hours in Canada. (I mean partly this shows how toothless the second-gen rule was, as established - if I'd known this I'd have got citizenship for my kid five or more years earlier. Also shows why I'm so damn angry about the fact the second-gen rule applied to me the way it did, with no substantial connections test - even for someone with 20+ years in Canada)

 

[canuck78]

Well, sure, but I wouldn't want to overestimate either. I guess we can just agree that better data is needed and leave it at that for now.



Ah. So it seems like, while three is too short, five years is a good balance in return for the potential liabilities? I'd agree that sounds reasonable too. Or are you just using that because I mentioned that it seems like a standard in other countries?



That's likely true but consider that international students prop up the economy in other ways. See https://immigration.ca/canadas-international-students-contributed-30-9b-to-gdp-in-2022/ for example. Even if not in taxes, I'd be inclined to say that this group has met the burden of paying for their future liabilities. Also consider that this group has a longer path to citizenship generally. Three years (more likely four) as an international student, to get three years on a post graduate work permit. So seven years with temporary resident status before being able to qualify for PR via Express Entry. Then two more years to apply for citizenship, so nine total.



Hmm. This is a good point. Here's where I see there being a potential flaw in the current system: someone really qualified comes over as an outland PR via Express Entry under the Federal Skilled Worker program. So they have PR as soon as they set foot for the first time in Canada, and they have enormous savings, enough to last a couple of years while they work on finding a job in their field - but surely it won't take anywhere near that long, right?

Except that somehow it does. (See https://medium.com/@tanmayarao/why-immigrants-have-a-hard-time-getting-a-job-in-canada-e1e1c5be2e1c ) They burn down their savings and after three years, they have to give up and go back, since they can no longer support themselves. (Or perhaps they can last a few more years but decide to turn in a bit earlier because they don't see the economy or the job market improving in the short term.)

But they already spent so much energy, effort, and money to try and make it work. Turns out they just qualify for citizenship too, so might as well right? Then go back home and work to rebuild their career and savings, while leaving a door open to return if the outlook ever changes in Canada.

Maybe this isn't ideal for Canada (living on savings means paying no taxes since there's no income), but it's definitely not ideal for them either.

I have mentioned 5 years to qualify for citizenship for years in many posts. Still on low range of time for citizenship globally and not sure Canada could demand something like 10 years although with doors closing or proposed immigration reforms in other countries (just saw the proposed revisions in Sweden) more than 5 years may even be possible. The current system is ridiculous with short residency requirement and no requirement to be in Canada during processing. It has incentivized Canada to be treated as a temporary home. Except for humanitarian programs, immigration policy is supposed to benefit Canada not the person trying to immigrate.

 

[armoured]

I have mentioned 5 years to qualify for citizenship for years in many posts. Still on low range of time for citizenship globally and not sure Canada could demand something like 10 years

Well, I'm glad my family members have been able to use the three year period to qualify - but I recognize the point. I think they could use a combination of physical presence (days) + time since becoming a PR (or including pre-PR time in Canada/paying taxes) to tighten things without it getting unfair or being seen as drastic - although they could phase things in over time. (Right now I think the process-only-in-Canada change is most urgent). Heck, I'd be open to them raising the fees for those applying 'early.'

If we're 'thinking out loud' (or just talking) here, if you wanted to extend the time period to be eligible for citizenship beyond four or five years, they could consider some intermediate stages - but these things would require some legislative creativity and (crucial to this idea) some serious work and effort in some areas we haven't traditionally wanted to touch.

For example: for many PRs, one of the big attractions of getting citizenship (quickly) is the hassle and restrictions for travelling. So for those who get to the three years (1095 days), a proper permanent resident travel document (PR 'passport') - that brings with it access to consular services (and better service overall), a current gap for many PRs.

To make it attractive, Canada would have to invest some effort in getting other countries to recognize - but for example the EU might be amenable, and that would be a big deal for many. In fact I'd say that for many getting the ability to travel 'normally' to places like Europe is one of the big differences. (USA might actually be more important for many in practical terms, but I'm not even going to mention coming to agreement with USA about stuff like this in current environment)

(The PRTD issue/processing delays are understandable for those out of compliance, crazy for those who are not - make the PRTD a rapid turn-around doc for most, and any H&C exemptions are automatically sent to IRCC not consular).

There would have to be some serious caveats and exceptions - i.e. Canada cannot guarantee other countries will recognize the doc, and zero 'consular' type services in country of origin.

Oh - and to make this attractive, we also need to make it more strict - so if you get this 'enhanced' PR status, you lose the 'enhanced' status if you don't fulfil some more strict conditions (on an ongoing basis). e.g.: currently RO compliance can be maintained with three years outside Canada; make the enhanced status contingent on keeping max time outside Canada 365 days in a three-year period. Some other restrictions could be considered too.

Just ideas. Quite a few of these are things that might have been / could have been considered in past, but weren't practical - because we didn't really have good coverage of entries and exits. But with these systems and some upgraded IT, these types of things could be possible and practical now.

I'd also note: some countries do have requirements like these, but also some of the benefits. These might not all pass constitutional muster (charter), but we do not have some of the constraints some other countries have, either. We could keep some carrots and not make it all 'stick.'

Some may be surprised to hear me say this, but I don't think birthright citizenship is a crucial or critical rights issue - it's not in our constitution, we don't have the nexus with slavery to deal with, and we can consider whether being born in Canada is sufficient without massively harming the rights of anyone. (Eg give kids born to TRV holders the PR status with some extended period like ten years to convert it to citizenship). I am somewhat reluctant because historically I think proposals to limit it have mostly been designed to target 'people we don't like' (which has tended to be the poor, brown and vulnerable) rather than what are just clear abuses (true birth tourism). I think it's possible to design some exclusions to birthright citizenship eg 'birth tourism' in a way that is not unfair, and protects newborns from statelessness and the like. That said: this particular idea is WAY down on my priorty list, because I just don't think the numbers are all that serious.

Oh, and the govt does have to deal with the second-gen issue in a non-stupid way.

 

[canuck78]

Well, I'm glad my family members have been able to use the three year period to qualify - but I recognize the point. I think they could use a combination of physical presence (days) + time since becoming a PR (or including pre-PR time in Canada/paying taxes) to tighten things without it getting unfair or being seen as drastic - although they could phase things in over time. (Right now I think the process-only-in-Canada change is most urgent). Heck, I'd be open to them raising the fees for those applying 'early.'

If we're 'thinking out loud' (or just talking) here, if you wanted to extend the time period to be eligible for citizenship beyond four or five years, they could consider some intermediate stages - but these things would require some legislative creativity and (crucial to this idea) some serious work and effort in some areas we haven't traditionally wanted to touch.

For example: for many PRs, one of the big attractions of getting citizenship (quickly) is the hassle and restrictions for travelling. So for those who get to the three years (1095 days), a proper permanent resident travel document (PR 'passport') - that brings with it access to consular services (and better service overall), a current gap for many PRs.

To make it attractive, Canada would have to invest some effort in getting other countries to recognize - but for example the EU might be amenable, and that would be a big deal for many. In fact I'd say that for many getting the ability to travel 'normally' to places like Europe is one of the big differences. (USA might actually be more important for many in practical terms, but I'm not even going to mention coming to agreement with USA about stuff like this in current environment)

(The PRTD issue/processing delays are understandable for those out of compliance, crazy for those who are not - make the PRTD a rapid turn-around doc for most, and any H&C exemptions are automatically sent to IRCC not consular).

There would have to be some serious caveats and exceptions - i.e. Canada cannot guarantee other countries will recognize the doc, and zero 'consular' type services in country of origin.

Oh - and to make this attractive, we also need to make it more strict - so if you get this 'enhanced' PR status, you lose the 'enhanced' status if you don't fulfil some more strict conditions (on an ongoing basis). e.g.: currently RO compliance can be maintained with three years outside Canada; make the enhanced status contingent on keeping max time outside Canada 365 days in a three-year period. Some other restrictions could be considered too.

Just ideas. Quite a few of these are things that might have been / could have been considered in past, but weren't practical - because we didn't really have good coverage of entries and exits. But with these systems and some upgraded IT, these types of things could be possible and practical now.

I'd also note: some countries do have requirements like these, but also some of the benefits. These might not all pass constitutional muster (charter), but we do not have some of the constraints some other countries have, either. We could keep some carrots and not make it all 'stick.'

Some may be surprised to hear me say this, but I don't think birthright citizenship is a crucial or critical rights issue - it's not in our constitution, we don't have the nexus with slavery to deal with, and we can consider whether being born in Canada is sufficient without massively harming the rights of anyone. (Eg give kids born to TRV holders the PR status with some extended period like ten years to convert it to citizenship). I am somewhat reluctant because historically I think proposals to limit it have mostly been designed to target 'people we don't like' (which has tended to be the poor, brown and vulnerable) rather than what are just clear abuses (true birth tourism). I think it's possible to design some exclusions to birthright citizenship eg 'birth tourism' in a way that is not unfair, and protects newborns from statelessness and the like. That said: this particular idea is WAY down on my priorty list, because I just don't think the numbers are all that serious.

Oh, and the govt does have to deal with the second-gen issue in a non-stupid way.

Think the birthright citizenship issue is a bigger issue than many think purely based on healthcare resources. Affects certain hospitals and areas significantly more than others. Also has major impact on NICUs which is not something many consider. Cost for NICU stay is very high and there is a small capacity so birth tourism places huge demands on that system while parents never pay into the system. In Ontario midwives are salaried so many without OHIP end up using the service for free for birth tourism while a large portion of OHIP holders can’t secure a midwife. A model more like the UK with some carve outs so no child is left stateless would be something I think many would endorse. Think most can agree that current system is not working on numerous levels.

 

[abff08f4813c]

I have mentioned 5 years to qualify for citizenship for years in many posts.

Well, you have been here for eight years and have over 58k posts. It's a lot to go through. But otherwise I think we're on the same page now.

Except for humanitarian programs, immigration policy is supposed to benefit Canada not the person trying to immigrate.

Well, I'd also carve out family reunification (allowing spouse and minor children to come and become citizens).

This may sound minor but I'd personally support the idea that grant of citizenship should only be done while in Canada. The entire process. Still resident in Canada. Pause applications while anyone out of country. This file-for-citizenship-on-the-way-out - or having already left - is crazy.

I'm seeing some evidence that this may already be the case at least some of the time regarding the pause. For example https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/leaving-canada-after-citizenship-application-informing-of-2-weeks-leave.805710/post-10497845 where the poster encountered a significant delay because they left Canada after applying for citizenship and notified IRCC.

Of course it doesn't work perfectly - the poster above that one did not notify IRCC and got citizenship timely.

Including for minors, by the way - I was surprised to read one case of someone who was proud that they'd been able to get citizenship for their child by sponsoring the kid and then getting citizenship - and the child spent less than 72 hours in Canada.

I'd not include minors for the family reunification reasons mentioned above. In particular I can imagine a scenario where divorced parents and custody interferes - the non-Canadian parent has custody and isn't willing to let the child be away for months at a time, but is okay with a 72 hour trip to get citizenship, which will in the future allow the grown up kid to live together with non-custodial parent in Canada as an adult. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of other scenarios.

(I mean partly this shows how toothless the second-gen rule was, as established - if I'd known this I'd have got citizenship for my kid five or more years earlier. Also shows why I'm so damn angry about the fact the second-gen rule applied to me the way it did, with no substantial connections test - even for someone with 20+ years in Canada)

Isn't that just temporary? Because C-71 got suspended due to, erm, other political events happening? But from reading https://immigcanada.com/bill-c-71-suspension/ I'd expect that a new version would pass in short order once it's back to business as usual.

 

[armoured]

I'd not include minors for the family reunification reasons mentioned above. In particular I can imagine a scenario where divorced parents and custody interferes - the non-Canadian parent has custody and isn't willing to let the child be away for months at a time, but is okay with a 72 hour trip to get citizenship, which will in the future allow the grown up kid to live together with non-custodial parent in Canada as an adult. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of other scenarios.

I don't see the need for the child to be granted citizenship in this instance. The non-custodial parent can sponsor the child to regain PR status up to age 22.

Isn't that just temporary? Because C-71 got suspended due to, erm, other political events happening? But from reading https://immigcanada.com/bill-c-71-suspension/ I'd expect that a new version would pass in short order once it's back to business as usual.

Well, yes, temporary until it gets fixed. But it's still not been, and there does not seem to be actual agreement between the parties on the nature of the fix (although I think that was mostly grandstanding by one party prior to elections, it still prevented it from being fixed). And I won't believe the draft versions until it's adopted, because that one party was (supposedly) insisting on something quite different.

 

[abff08f4813c]

Well, yes, temporary until it gets fixed. But it's still not been, and there does not seem to be actual agreement between the parties on the nature of the fix (although I think that was mostly grandstanding by one party prior to elections, it still prevented it from being fixed). And I won't believe the draft versions until it's adopted, because that one party was (supposedly) insisting on something quite different.

Good point. Agreed.

I don't see the need for the child to be granted citizenship in this instance. The non-custodial parent can sponsor the child to regain PR status up to age 22.

Not sure how it works worldwide, but perhaps that works. Finish high school in the other country at 18, head straight to college for 4 years, graduate with a bachelor's at 22 and then head to Canada.

Of course, the average age at graduation in, say Germany for example, is 23.6 years as per https://www.statista.com/statistics/584325/first-degree-university-graduates-age-germany/ so that's cutting it kinda close.

So my concern here would be that there could be a situation where the parents get the PR and have the child do the soft landing as late as possible but the child still isn't able to permanently move to Canada, due to circumstances, until they become out of compliance with RO, leading the PR to get revoked and family reunification to fail.

 

[armoured]

Think the birthright citizenship issue is a bigger issue than many think purely based on healthcare resources. ... Think most can agree that current system is not working on numerous levels.

I believe I expressed only how high a priority I would attach - no statement implied about how high a priority others should.

However...

Affects certain hospitals and areas significantly more than others. Also has major impact on NICUs which is not something many consider. Cost for NICU stay is very high and there is a small capacity so birth tourism places huge demands on that system while parents never pay into the system. In Ontario midwives are salaried so many without OHIP end up using the service for free for birth tourism while a large portion of OHIP holders can’t secure a midwife.

I'm sure a railroader would give an equally wordy description of the impact upon the tracks and the extent of the problem.

A model more like the UK with some carve outs so no child is left stateless would be something I think many would endorse.

While I'm not intimately familiar with the UK model, I believe that's what I proposed, essentially.

I do note that there's a difference in formulation amongst some that I think is problematic - first, 'birthright citizenship' is (I think) a misnomer here, in that it's not a right in the same way; it's simply a law that says those born here are citizens. The law can be changed.

That said: I'd prefer we move to a formulation that says those born here are citizens, with the following (quite limited) exceptions: [current one for diplomats, I think we should add spies and the like, add a few limited under some definition of birthright tourism.] Perhaps add some limited status eg permanent residency for those that fall between certain cracks (for example, asylum claimants not yet adjudicated), and definitely the stateless protections.

Or to be clear: I don't want a list of circumstances in which a child born in Canada is entitled to become a citizen, but only limited carve-outs, which must be explicit.

 

[abff08f4813c]

Well, I'm glad my family members have been able to use the three year period to qualify

Just throwing it out there - family reunification exception.

- but I recognize the point. I think they could use a combination of physical presence (days) + time since becoming a PR (or including pre-PR time in Canada/paying taxes) to tighten things without it getting unfair or being seen as drastic - although they could phase things in over time. (Right now I think the process-only-in-Canada change is most urgent).

Agreed, that seems more than reasonable.

Heck, I'd be open to them raising the fees for those applying 'early.'

That's fair. It takes you longer to qualify for citizenship if you were an economic PR (e.g. Express Entry), since you received PR on the basis of being able to contribute to and benefit Canada. But if you are able to "contribute" some more and thus reduce the liability to Canada of getting citizenship early, you can get it sooner. I've been thinking about something similar (that for medical issues where the sole problem is the cost to the public, you can still qualify for PR if you can prepay those costs).

For example: for many PRs, one of the big attractions of getting citizenship (quickly) is the hassle and restrictions for travelling. So for those who get to the three years (1095 days), a proper permanent resident travel document (PR 'passport') - that brings with it access to consular services (and better service overall), a current gap for many PRs.

To make it attractive, Canada would have to invest some effort in getting other countries to recognize - but for example the EU might be amenable, and that would be a big deal for many. In fact I'd say that for many getting the ability to travel 'normally' to places like Europe is one of the big differences. (USA might actually be more important for many in practical terms, but I'm not even going to mention coming to agreement with USA about stuff like this in current environment)
There would have to be some serious caveats and exceptions - i.e. Canada cannot guarantee other countries will recognize the doc, and zero 'consular' type services in country of origin.

Well, I think this is the hardest part of getting automatic recognition here. Citizenship isn't normally lost, so a person who enters Europe or the US on a Canadian citizen's passport to visit, and then evades detection for many years, will eventually be caught and Canada will accept them back, liabilities or not.

Meanwhile, someone who enters on a Canadian PR passport, is pretty much guaranteed to lose their Canadian PR after being away for at least five years. So the guarantee that Canada would take them back is weaker - and at least some of these might be folks who were originally refugees and so can't be sent back to their country or nationality or birth either.

(The PRTD issue/processing delays are understandable for those out of compliance, crazy for those who are not - make the PRTD a rapid turn-around doc for most, and any H&C exemptions are automatically sent to IRCC not consular).

Oh - and to make this attractive, we also need to make it more strict - so if you get this 'enhanced' PR status, you lose the 'enhanced' status if you don't fulfil some more strict conditions (on an ongoing basis). e.g.: currently RO compliance can be maintained with three years outside Canada; make the enhanced status contingent on keeping max time outside Canada 365 days in a three-year period. Some other restrictions could be considered too.

Unrelated to the above, but I quite like this idea and how it solves the "lost my PR card before the flight" issue. PRTD says as-is to avoid confusion but it'd mostly get relegated to the hard H&C cases anyways, while the new PR passport is easier to get - you can apply for it while inside Canada for example, and only need a valid unexpired PR card or valid unexpired CoPR to apply (so new PRs who didn't get their cards in the mail yet can still apply). Or perhaps it can be expired for a max six months if we want to be generous.

To that I'd add that there should be a visa sticker that represents PR status and is multiple entry. So that would give three documents that could be obtained inside of Canada before leaving to allow a PR to fly back - the PR multi-entry visa, the PR passport, and the PR card. Making it easier to deal with the loss of any single one.

If we're 'thinking out loud' (or just talking) here, if you wanted to extend the time period to be eligible for citizenship beyond four or five years, they could consider some intermediate stages - but these things would require some legislative creativity and (crucial to this idea) some serious work and effort in some areas we haven't traditionally wanted to touch.

Just ideas. Quite a few of these are things that might have been / could have been considered in past, but weren't practical - because we didn't really have good coverage of entries and exits. But with these systems and some upgraded IT, these types of things could be possible and practical now.

I'd also note: some countries do have requirements like these, but also some of the benefits. These might not all pass constitutional muster (charter), but we do not have some of the constraints some other countries have, either. We could keep some carrots and not make it all 'stick.'

So, an idea. The US has a concept of US non-citizen national. These folks are not full US citizens but have most (but not all) of the rights that come with being a US citizenship. The British used to have something similar with the concept of a British Overseas Citizen.

So perhaps one solution is to give a grant from PR to a new Canadian non-citizen national status (or CNCN). This is a full nationality and Canada would remain fully responsible for this person, making it easier to travel; but by having fewer rights than a full citizen the liabilities would be reduced. For example, the status can't be passed on to children (though they can sponsor their children for PR the same way a PR parent, and obviously a child of theirs born in Canada is a full citizen thanks to birthright citizenship).

Perhaps some of their rights are also weaker than PRs (e.g. a PR who is overseas with a Canadian citizen spouse after decades could come back and reestablish healthcare quickly, while a CNCN would especially need to wait much longer) - the trade off is that in return for giving up these things the applicant obtains a status that is harder to lose than PR. It's a status that's designed to allow them to maintain a connection to Canada while being away for a longer period of time.

So you need three years as a PR to become a CNCN, and two years as a CNCN to become a full citizen. Or else five years from PR to CNCN.

TBH, I'm not sure I like this idea of basically creating a second-class citizenship status. But at least I can't be accused of not thinking outside the box.

 

[armoured]

Not sure how it works worldwide, but perhaps that works. Finish high school in the other country at 18, head straight to college for 4 years, graduate with a bachelor's at 22 and then head to Canada.

Of course, the average age at graduation in, say Germany for example, is 23.6 years as per https://www.statista.com/statistics/584325/first-degree-university-graduates-age-germany/ so that's cutting it kinda close.

I think it's entirely fair and reasonable to say the child needs to take concrete actions before age 22. That may include compromises or choices to be made about post-secondary education. There's no implied 'right' for the child to complete secondary education in the country and pace of their choosing.

So my concern here would be that there could be a situation where the parents get the PR and have the child do the soft landing as late as possible but the child still isn't able to permanently move to Canada, due to circumstances, until they become out of compliance with RO, leading the PR to get revoked and family reunification to fail.

I don't fully understand the issue. But at any rate: I don't think the goal of policy should be to allow/facilitate family reunification incl residency rights for all parents in all circumstances; it's not feasible. We provide opportunities for families to reunite under certain limited circumstances, that will require choices to be made and actions undertaken in order to do so (including a meaningful amount of time of which should be as adults).

Some will make other choices for various reasons; that's ok. Those children can still apply and qualify as PR-candidates like any other.

However, as a nod to your concern, I'd support some things that've been suggested elsewhere, like giving more points in the point calculation for having relatives/some types of relatives in Canada. I think for example right now it's a max of 15 points (? don't remember), and many relatives excluded from that. Have a list of relatives, some weighted more than others (parents), and cap it at 70 points or something.

 

[armoured]

Well, I think this is the hardest part of getting automatic recognition here. Citizenship isn't normally lost, so a person who enters Europe or the US on a Canadian citizen's passport to visit, and then evades detection for many years, will eventually be caught and Canada will accept them back, liabilities or not.

Meanwhile, someone who enters on a Canadian PR passport, is pretty much guaranteed to lose their Canadian PR after being away for at least five years. So the guarantee that Canada would take them back is weaker - and at least some of these might be folks who were originally refugees and so can't be sent back to their country or nationality or birth either.

Yes, that would be one of the difficulties Canada would face in getting other countries to recognize. Should be possible, if Canada is willing to give that "we'll take them back" offer to certain countries/areas (eg Schengen) - and I don't think that should be a deal-breaker, in that I wouldn't anticipate long-term costs to be that high. (Reminder, we'd only offer this enhanced PR/document to those that'd already lived in Canada for quite some time, and likely for only short-term visits to other places)

So, an idea. The US has a concept of US non-citizen national. These folks are not full US citizens but have most (but not all) of the rights that come with being a US citizenship. The British used to have something similar with the concept of a British Overseas Citizen.
...
TBH, I'm not sure I like this idea of basically creating a second-class citizenship status. But at least I can't be accused of not thinking outside the box.

No worries, it's just talking. My version is an in-between, also.

I've objected strongly to the implication that those born abroad are second-class citizens in the past - but I've tried to make it clear my issue with the current (prior to amendment) law is that any form of second-class citizenship should be curable - the individual can 'fix' it ('upgrade') by their actions (and those tests for actions should be reasonable). Under current law, because I was born abroad, I can never fix that status in such a way as to pass on citizenship to children born abroad. (And if that's the case, then ANY citizen should also be subject to similar limitations in order for it to be fair - i.e. no passing on of citizenship to children born abroad)

 

[canuck78]

I believe I expressed only how high a priority I would attach - no statement implied about how high a priority others should.

However...


I'm sure a railroader would give an equally wordy description of the impact upon the tracks and the extent of the problem.

Just pointing out that many would agree with you and would welcome reforms. Of course those who work in healthcare are more aware of the impact of visitors on Canada’s healthcare system. When there was a recent story about insurance denying a 97k claim from a parent who ended up in the ICU soon after arriving in Canada my first thought was about the OHIP patient stuck in the ED or another hospital needing that ICU bed. Unless you work in a hospital (especially certain hospitals) or have had a baby recently you are likely unaware of what is going on.

While I'm not intimately familiar with the UK model, I believe that's what I proposed, essentially.

I do note that there's a difference in formulation amongst some that I think is problematic - first, 'birthright citizenship' is (I think) a misnomer here, in that it's not a right in the same way; it's simply a law that says those born here are citizens. The law can be changed.

That said: I'd prefer we move to a formulation that says those born here are citizens, with the following (quite limited) exceptions: [current one for diplomats, I think we should add spies and the like, add a few limited under some definition of birthright tourism.] Perhaps add some limited status eg permanent residency for those that fall between certain cracks (for example, asylum claimants not yet adjudicated), and definitely the stateless protections.

Or to be clear: I don't want a list of circumstances in which a child born in Canada is entitled to become a citizen, but only limited carve-outs, which must be explicit.

 

[canuck78]

Well, you have been here for eight years and have over 58k posts. It's a lot to go through. But otherwise I think we're on the same page now.



Well, I'd also carve out family reunification (allowing spouse and minor children to come and become citizens).



I'm seeing some evidence that this may already be the case at least some of the time regarding the pause. For example https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/leaving-canada-after-citizenship-application-informing-of-2-weeks-leave.805710/post-10497845 where the poster encountered a significant delay because they left Canada after applying for citizenship and notified IRCC.

Of course it doesn't work perfectly - the poster above that one did not notify IRCC and got citizenship timely.



I'd not include minors for the family reunification reasons mentioned above. In particular I can imagine a scenario where divorced parents and custody interferes - the non-Canadian parent has custody and isn't willing to let the child be away for months at a time, but is okay with a 72 hour trip to get citizenship, which will in the future allow the grown up kid to live together with non-custodial parent in Canada as an adult. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of other scenarios.



Isn't that just temporary? Because C-71 got suspended due to, erm, other political events happening? But from reading https://immigcanada.com/bill-c-71-suspension/ I'd expect that a new version would pass in short order once it's back to business as usual.

Family reunification of spouses (especially under 40) and dependent children still considered an economic benefit since will likely participate in the workforce as well as the next generation and balance out our ageing population.

 

[abff08f4813c]

Family reunification of spouses (especially under 40) and dependent children still considered an economic benefit since will likely participate in the workforce as well as the next generation and balance out our ageing population.

I'd argue that in terms of policy that it's not treated as an economic benefit. Economic PRs need to pass medicals proving that they won't cost too much and overly burden the healthcare system, but (for example) spousal PRs don't need to do this. Likewise, after age 55 economic PR isn't possible (too old to benefit Canada?) but beyond that age one can still be sponsored as a spousse.

There are economic benefits for sure, no doubt about that, but that's more of a bonus than something the system required by design in family reunification cases.

 

[armoured]

I'd argue that in terms of policy that it's not treated as an economic benefit. Economic PRs need to pass medicals proving that they won't cost too much and overly burden the healthcare system, but (for example) spousal PRs don't need to do this. Likewise, after age 55 economic PR isn't possible (too old to benefit Canada?) but beyond that age one can still be sponsored as a spousse.

There are economic benefits for sure, no doubt about that, but that's more of a bonus than something the system required by design in family reunification cases.

I agree that aspects of it (exemption from the 'undue health burden' clause, for example) are more or less required by the family reunification aspect. And of course it's clear that the 'selection' aspect for economic criteria is not present (save indirectly like some financial requirements).

That said - overall - I think there is explicit and implicit understanding that in terms of policy, spousal sponsorship with kids is a net-net good for the economy and the government's long-term finances, just on basis that spouse sponsorship is more often for the young, and children brought with parents/born afterwards help demographically. (yes, not exclusively, as there are some sponsorships of those later in life - again, on a net basis). One thing to keep in mind is that a fairly large percentage of spousal sponsorships are by PRs or (relatively recently) naturalized Canadians (including some who arrived in Canada as children/youths). So that right there is a large overlap with the demographic who arrived/became Canadian in the 2-15 years before the sponsorship. And again, not perfect correlation, but large demographic/age/social characteristics (education etc) with their sponsors.

So basically: even without knowing the details in advance of spousal sponsorship, these are programs from big numbers and spread out in time and space; no way to predetermine everything, the main thing overall is to get the basic characteristics 'netting out' to help the economy/demographic split.