Advance thoughts on upcoming citizenship changes

[on-hold]

I feel apprehensive about the upcoming bill -- this isn't the government I'd want, modifying the citizenship act . . . Here's how I feel ahead of time.

Could be good

If they formalize and clarify the residential requirement, and establish clear mechanisms for determining how this can be demonstrated
If they increase the residential requirement to 4/6 years, clear up the backlog, and get their systems in order; probably a net benefit for new applicants
If they set up taxation or fee systems so that Canadians abroad can contribute to the country
If they do these with a period of grace

Could be neutral

If they just make it 4/6 years but don't do anything to fix the mess they caused with RQ

Could be bad

If they increase the residential requirement past 4/6 years; or worse, increase it without increasing the year that they permit people to be out of the country

Could be very bad

If they undercut dual citizenship
If they do anything to make the 'absolute' Canadian citizenship conditional: revoked after 5 years out of the country, granted provisionally, etc.



One of the hateful things about this government is that they operate in secret, make laws with no outside input or consultation, and move forward without listening to criticism or feedback. I guess you could say that tonight, I'm hopeful but not optimistic.

 

[ramsfe]

Well, if this reassures you in any way,

It is very hard to make dual citizenship illegal in Canada.... this country is multicultural and many immigrants will think more than twice before coming here if they have to give up their original citizenship. Add to this the fact that in the world, dual citizenship is becoming a right almost everywhere - Canada will not go back on this !

According to international charters and laws that canada signed, a citizenship can't be temporary and its revocation can't be easy... for example, international law prohibits countries from making people stateless. The moment canada will think of making its citizenship "conditional", not only it will need to change its constitution, but it will also have to change its charter of rights and liberties, its electoral system, and will have to leave most of the international bodies it is part of.... Drastic! no ? Won't ever happen! This is a thing that North Korea would do ! We do have crazy leaders, but not to that extent (yet) !

 

[keesio]

It is very hard to make dual citizenship illegal in Canada.... this country is multicultural and many immigrants will think more than twice before coming here if they have to give up their original citizenship. Add to this the fact that in the world, dual citizenship is becoming a right almost everywhere - Canada will not go back on this !

Also, many of the most well known and famous Canadians are dual citizens simply because they have spent so much time the US and became naturalized US citizens, including many Canadian icons like Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Frank Gehry, Michael J Fox, James Cameron, etc. Basically tons of entertainers and hockey players. The uproar from this influential group would make such a law unlikely

 

[on-hold]

I would have no issues with the citizenship reform process if it actually tried to solve problems; but I don't trust the Conservative frame, that this has to be done to prevent Canada being taken advantage of. That's an approach that isolates immigrants and makes it seem that their interests and Canada's interests are separate.

Especially since the biggest problem is the RQ process, that they put in and now are using as an excuse to make further changes.

 

[links18]

Well, they already started enforcing the rule to strip Canadian ex-pats (naturalized or not) of voting rights after five years out the country.

 

[vic48912]

Well, if this reassures you in any way,

It is very hard to make dual citizenship illegal in Canada.... this country is multicultural and many immigrants will think more than twice before coming here if they have to give up their original citizenship. Add to this the fact that in the world, dual citizenship is becoming a right almost everywhere - Canada will not go back on this !

According to international charters and laws that canada signed, a citizenship can't be temporary and its revocation can't be easy... for example, international law prohibits countries from making people stateless. The moment canada will think of making its citizenship "conditional", not only it will need to change its constitution, but it will also have to change its charter of rights and liberties, its electoral system, and will have to leave most of the international bodies it is part of.... Drastic! no ? Won't ever happen! This is a thing that North Korea would do ! We do have crazy leaders, but not to that extent (yet) !

That is why I find it funny about the propose law with regards to revoking citizenship.......Yes it is legally possible to revoke citizenship of naturalized Canadian with dual nationality but almost impossible to revoke citizenship for naturalized/birth Canadian with single nationality.....Canada is a signatory to that United Nation treaty......international treaty state that you can not make someone stateless

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/10/14/man-cannot-be-stripped-of-british-citizenship-rules-supreme-court/

Even United States Supreme Court struck down section 401 of the 1940 nationality act that gives power to US government to revoke citizenship of either naturalized or birth whose offence is not related to treason......

Lawyers will just be drooling if this propose law is ever implemented

 

[MR Stephen Harper]

I feel apprehensive about the upcoming bill -- this isn't the government I'd want, modifying the citizenship act . . . Here's how I feel ahead of time.

Could be good

If they formalize and clarify the residential requirement, and establish clear mechanisms for determining how this can be demonstrated
If they increase the residential requirement to 4/6 years, clear up the backlog, and get their systems in order; probably a net benefit for new applicants
If they set up taxation or fee systems so that Canadians abroad can contribute to the country
If they do these with a period of grace



Could be neutral

If they just make it 4/6 years but don't do anything to fix the mess they caused with RQ

Could be bad

If they increase the residential requirement past 4/6 years; or worse, increase it without increasing the year that they permit people to be out of the country

Could be very bad

If they undercut dual citizenship
If they do anything to make the 'absolute' Canadian citizenship conditional: revoked after 5 years out of the country, granted provisionally, etc.



One of the hateful things about this government is that they operate in secret, make laws with no outside input or consultation, and move forward without listening to criticism or feedback. I guess you could say that tonight, I'm hopeful but not optimistic.

I dont agree at all with your views. This gvt does consult on various issues: wireless spectrum and competition debate,parent and grandparent sponsorship(of which i think they should have closed!), marriage of conviniences,Canada post five point plan,Northern Gateway in BC,etc.And lets be frank,The Canadian gvt has every right to change its laws to what the Canadian public supports and in most cases not as much. Every gvt has that right and incase if u didnt know, the all bills pass thruough the justice department for verification and ammendments so they are constitutional.Now,also comparing to other western countries, Canada is very fair.How long do u have to wait in the US till you get US citizenship? Infact right now,Obama supports. "a special path to citizenship " for illegal immigrants.Yes,those that broke US laws will get US citizenship yet millions of legal and skilled immigrants who have contributed immensely to the US economy would be sidelibed and firced to wait many more years to get US citizenship! So much unfairness at play...so at least our gvt isnt like that.Hurry and get your application in,sounds like the law wont be retroactive! It will probably receive royal accent in aboutb2-3 months im assuming.What ever the new requirements are,they affect future PRs and other pple who intend to be citizens one way or the other.Hopefully they prepare to have it all online and slash processing times that way too.

 

[vic48912]

I dont agree at all with your views. This gvt does consult on various issues: wireless spectrum and competition debate,parent and grandparent sponsorship(of which i think they should have closed!), marriage of conviniences,Canada post five point plan,Northern Gateway in BC,etc.And lets be frank,The Canadian gvt has every right to change its laws to what the Canadian public supports and in most cases not as much. Every gvt has that right and incase if u didnt know, the all bills pass thruough the justice department for verification and ammendments so they are constitutional.Now,also comparing to other western countries, Canada is very fair.How long do u have to wait in the US till you get US citizenship? Infact right now,Obama supports. "a special path to citizenship " for illegal immigrants.Yes,those that broke US laws will get US citizenship yet millions of legal and skilled immigrants who have contributed immensely to the US economy would be sidelibed and firced to wait many more years to get US citizenship! So much unfairness at play...so at least our gvt isnt like that.Hurry and get your application in,sounds like the law wont be retroactive! It will probably receive royal accent in aboutb2-3 months im assuming.What ever the new requirements are,they affect future PRs and other pple who intend to be citizens one way or the other.Hopefully they prepare to have it all online and slash processing times that way too.

Oh yea like the way they consulted the public and election Canada with the fair election bill Pierre Poilievre just presented in parliament........he stated yesterday in Parliament he had lengthy conversation with the head of election Canada...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/02/03/elections-canada-pierre-poilievre_n_4719284.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics

I know who to believe......ideologues or technocrats?

 

[torontosm]

Oh yea like the way they consulted the public and election Canada with the fair election bill Pierre Poilievre just presented in parliament........he stated yesterday in Parliament he had lengthy conversation with the head of election Canada...

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/02/03/elections-canada-pierre-poilievre_n_4719284.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-politics

I know who to believe......ideologues or technocrats?

Umm..no, like the way that they consulted Canadians on immigration levels and mix last summer. Perhaps you should have participated in the survey instead of posting your nonsense on this form.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/releases/2013/2013-06-21.asp

 

[ramsfe]

I did participate.... the survey had single minded questions and aimed to make people give the answers that the government wanted to hear!

 

[on-hold]

And . . . it's good news! I am afraid I have to apologize to the Honourable Mr. Harper, his bill makes sense and does not create an undue burden on applicants who were planning to apply under the old rules. Most importantly, because it is 4/6 years, I can take a vacation to visit my in-laws in Thailand . . . that thought is the only thing that has been getting me through this Alberta February . . .

 

[keesio]

I have more mixed reviews. I don't mind some of the stricter rules but I disagree with the rule to only allow time spent in Canada as a PR to count towards citizenship. I recall when I was here on a work visa. I paid full taxes and was a full time resident. I thought it was nice that they took that into account and gave me days at 50% value.

 

[farrous13]

That's true. I lived in Canada for 6 years before becoming a PR. I'm lucky that I submitted my application last year. But my wife who is going to apply next year will not get the advantage. She's been here for 5 years. It should count for something. Especially that we are paying taxes and what not.

I have more mixed reviews. I don't mind some of the stricter rules but I disagree with the rule to only allow time spent in Canada as a PR to count towards citizenship. I recall when I was here on a work visa. I paid full taxes and was a full time resident. I thought it was nice that they took that into account and gave me days at 50% value.

 

[on-hold]

I agree with you both about removing the pre-PR benefit, and that is a real negative to this bill -- as is the provision banishing terrorists (in that it sets up a punishment that can't be applied to birth-Canadians, and so creates two classes of citizenship).

My happiness was mostly selfish relief that this bill didn't make my life appreciably more difficult, which it EASILY could have. I'm sorry for people like your wife, who have been here for some time, and won't get that recognized now.

 

[keesio]

I agree with you both about removing the pre-PR benefit, and that is a real negative to this bill -- as is the provision banishing terrorists (in that it sets up a punishment that can't be applied to birth-Canadians, and so creates two classes of citizenship).

My happiness was mostly selfish relief that this bill didn't make my life appreciably more difficult, which it EASILY could have. I'm sorry for people like your wife, who have been here for some time, and won't get that recognized now.

Yeah my wife is affected (if this bill passes) too. But it just means that she just has to wait a bit longer to get her citizenship if she chooses to apply for one. The pre-PR 50% thing doesn't impact her since she moved here landing as a PR. I was just sympathizing with current people who were like me, living here full-time and working and paying taxes and not having those days count at all. I feel for them. I certainly felt like a resident back then. Everything else in the bill I can live with, though the "crimes in another country" thing... that needs more explanation. Some countries have strange laws. What if you are convicted of homosexual relations in a country that doesn't allow it and that is a felony there? I hope the "crimes" are only for ones that Canada would also see as a crime. We shall see.