Any thoughts on this? opinions from both ends; Sponsor and Sponsored Spouse

[moochops]

Also don't forget that another part to the rule is that a pr will have to have been a pr for 5 years before they can spnsor someone.

 

[Deficient]

Also don't forget that another part to the rule is that a pr will have to have been a pr for 5 years before they can spnsor someone.

Only if that PR was sponsored by a spouse. If they became a PR by another route, e.g. FSW, then this doesn't apply.

 

[amikety]

There is another issue with conditional PR which has created some very tragic situations in the US that have ruined lives.

If the sponsored person is abused by their sponsor in the US, they can complain to officials and retain their PR status even though they haven't lived with their sponsor for the two years. This is a great rule when the abuse is real.

What has (and continues to) happen in the US, is that some sponsored immigrants will falsely claim abuse shortly after arriving in the US because they know about this loop hole. The sponsored immigrant is then allowed to keep their PR status without living with their sponsor for two years. The sponsored person will sometime even end up owning all of the assets (property, bank accounts) that formerly belonged to their sponsor.

The sponsor is then falsely charged with abuse by the police and ends up with a criminal record. In extreme cases where these false charges aren't dropped, sponsors have ended up losing their jobs, their houses/assets, access to chilren from previous relationships, etc.

There are several forums dedicated to false claims of abuse such as these. Some people who have been falsely accused have literally lost everthing and their lives have been permanently destroyed. If you want to read some sad stories, go here:

http://immigrationfraudvictims.freeforums.org/immigration-marriage-fraud-f2.html

I don't think there's a sure-fire way to determine if an abuse accusation is false. So I suspect we will see similar situations in Canada.

I couldn't have said it better. I do agree there need to be stricter measures against fraud, but the idea of forcing someone to stay with an abusive spouse makes me sick.

And yes, this law will force people to remain in abusive situations for many reason (custody of children is a prime example... Can't take the kids and go back home.) It gives power to the abuser.

Before you judge, until you've been there... You have no idea what it's like.

 

[MSP2YYZ]

And yes, this law will force people to remain in abusive situations for many reason (custody of children is a prime example... Can't take the kids and go back home.) It gives power to the abuser.

This applies whether the rule is in effect or not. You cannot take a Canadian child out of the country without both parents permission.

 

[saka101]

What about those who are in relationship for longer than 2 years but married for less than 2 years?

 

[bagelbagel81]

No, it will not apply to you.


Wouldn't it also be a massive bummer if you moved to Canada, set up your new life and got comfortable and happy with your new job and new friends and such, and then say your sponsor cheated on you 20 months into your PR and ended the relationship? You gave up everything to be with them, and then this end result: PR revoked, say bye bye to your new job and friends and life and everything you established in good faith. I know we're all taking a pretty big life risk in moving to Canada but that seems extraordinarily cruel.

I think the new rule is a great idea- yes more paperwork for legit couples, but not as much as when you first apply. I think the person should have their PR revoked if less than two years. So what if you have set up a life in Canada. It was with the intention you would be with your partner, so if you aren't with them anymore, too bad. That's just the way the cookie crumbles. This is coming from someone being sponsored as well as the sponsor.

Edited to add: in cases of abuse and the sponsor losing everything, i guess there will always be un ideal situations, however this same situation could occur from two people that aren't from different countries, so I guess that's when it should be dealt with on a case by case basis.

 

[amikety]

This applies whether the rule is in effect or not. You cannot take a Canadian child out of the country without both parents permission.

Control of children is one of the main ways abusers control their spouses. The abuser tells the spouse "Go ahead, leave me. You'll be deported and never see the kids again."

That IS fear.

 

[moochops]

What about those who are in relationship for longer than 2 years but married for less than 2 years?

then the rule it seems would applied to them - the term 'married less than 2 years' still applies.

 

[R151NG5UN]

then the rule it seems would applied to them - the term 'married less than 2 years' still applies.

Can you show me where it says "married less than 2 years"? All I can find is "The new regulations apply to spouses or partners in a relationship of two years or less and who have no children in common with their sponsor at the time they submit their sponsorship application"

Nowhere do I see has to be married 2 years!

 

[Deficient]

I think the person should have their PR revoked if less than two years. So what if you have set up a life in Canada. It was with the intention you would be with your partner, so if you aren't with them anymore, too bad. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

So why would this not apply to a failed relationship that lasts longer than two years after PR is granted, compared to a relationship that lasts less then two years? Why doesn't this apply 10 years later, for example? You took your chances, it failed, so you have to go home.

The thing people don't seem to be getting here is that two years as a measure of a 'genuine relationship' is completely arbitrary. Plucked out of the air, utterly devoid of any meaning in the real world. It's useful as a benchmark after which CIC can say: "We can assume this relationship was likely genuine because it lasted longer than two years, so we will not entertain allegations of marriage fraud after that point."

Why does 24 months spent in a relationship entitle someone to stay in Canada after separating, whereas 23 months doesn't? It's not difficult for a fraudster to just stay in the relationship for longer if they have to, and then be entitled to stay in Canada, whereas someone who came to Canada in good faith and gave up everything and set up their life here, would be sent home because their relationship didn't last long enough.

In fact, taking this a step further still... say your sponsor dies. The rules state that PR will not be lost in this scenario, quite rightly so in my opinion, but if I am to follow your view on this to its logical conclusion....

So what if you have set up a life in Canada. It was with the intention you would be with your partner, so if you aren't with them anymore, too bad.

They died, you're not with them any more. Right? Too bad, off you go home now. That is, after all, just the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[bacontoaster]

I think this is a great step in the right direction; however, the details seem kinda murky. As you guys mentioned above, does 2 years mean 2 years of marriage or 2 years of relationship... or is this distinction different between common-law and married applicants. Secondly they don't actually outline what the terms of the conditional PR would be or how it's enforced over the two years.

As my app was received on Oct 11, and my husband and I have been together for over 3 years it shouldn't affect us, but I do want to see more specifics about what the new rules are.

 

[327856]

no - only after oct 25

thank you! thought so!

 

[moochops]

The rule will only apply to those who have been married less than two years and have no children together at the time of their application.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/canada/Immigration+Minister+Kenney+announces+restrictions+newlyweds/7451948/story.html#ixzz2AQyPNZsW

or from the original article on page 1

They'll now have to live together in what the government calls a legitimate relationship for two years or the sponsored spouse could lose permanent resident status.

The rule will only apply to those who have been married less than two years and have no children together at the time of their application.


I think the confusion you may be facing is that the following 2 years after the marriage the couple will have to prove that they are still living together as a husband and wife

 

[R151NG5UN]

With all respect to the Calgary herald what they are reporting is not 100% accurate and differs from what the CIC states. CIC states rule comes in to effect 25th October 2012 whereas the Herald states all applications after October 26th 2012 (I assume this means October 27th 2012). As the CIC does not mention 2 years of marriage it merely says 2 years of relationship and I quote.

"The new regulations apply to spouses or partners in a relationship of two years or less and who have no children in common with their sponsor at the time they submit their sponsorship application"

So in respect to the Herald their article is not factual.

 

[niloogoogooli]

its awsome...love it...

I enjoy Discussions and Love opinions.....

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/immigration-minister-kenney-announces-immigration-restrictions-newlyweds-120114783.html