Bill C-24: can citizenship now be revoked for working/studying away from Canada?
- Thread starter fl_pie
- Start date
Whatever the law says does not matter in this regard. Under the new application form, CIC is just asking whether you will be residing inside Canada or not"If Citizenship is Granted". Obviously you will say YES.. That means you are committing yourself to be in Canada once your are citizen no matter what..
Now for sake of argument, let's say one became citizen and got passport and found better opportunity in other country being a Canadian citizen or wish to live in his/her home country. As per Canadian charter of rights, a citizen has all rights to do so..
BUT the problem is, when CIC will put spot lights on new citizens applied after June 10, 2015 and will try to find peoples those who lied in the application form and they in fact not living in Canada.
CIC simply can take the administrative action because of lying or providing misleading information. But the question is whether CIC will strip those individual citizenship or not all will depend on individual circumstances.
Now for sake of argument, let's say one became citizen and got passport and found better opportunity in other country being a Canadian citizen or wish to live in his/her home country. As per Canadian charter of rights, a citizen has all rights to do so..
BUT the problem is, when CIC will put spot lights on new citizens applied after June 10, 2015 and will try to find peoples those who lied in the application form and they in fact not living in Canada.
CIC simply can take the administrative action because of lying or providing misleading information. But the question is whether CIC will strip those individual citizenship or not all will depend on individual circumstances.
Correct! It is unbelievable what kind of misinformation and fear mongering is done on this board. "Getting your citizenship revoked for leaving the country", or, "one is not allowed to leave Canada". Whoever thinks this, will need his or her sanity checked.MUFC said:
I am all for it, everyone coming with the intention of screwing the system, just getting a passport for convenience sake and not contributing, deserves to be questioned. Even then, with lack of intention, it is almost impossible to prove.
Relax, I give it another month and the shit storm will be over. The future law abiding Canadian citizen has nothing to be afraid of.
Not necessarily no. It's like the CRA randomly checking a small percentage of tax returns to verify for fraud, even without a potential red flag. And they're pretty fast. That's not the issue, the issue is, this law allows for the government to "investigate" your intentions while you were an applicant, and to start and/or continue this investigation after you've become a citizen. Apart from the fact that this is dirty by itself, and meaningless, it also creates a disparity between a pre-june11th applicant, and a post June-10th applicant. Lucky for me, I'm already taking my oath later on this month, so I'm not affected. However, I'm equally offended as new applicants and I find it outrageous.MUFC said:
I will apply after June 10th, and I don't have any problem with that new Law.yr97 said:
Actually because of that new Law now finally I am eligible to apply soon, because now I can calculate my days as PR from the last 6 years.
I travel a lot, so the first case of revoked citizenship will be connected with me.
I will keep you guys updated how they will revoke my Canadian citizenship.
I hope that they will revoke it for free, because I don't want to pay for the process.
The only way to know what the government is planning to use this clause for is to give it a try.
I call for someone who believes that this clause will not be used against new Canadians to volunteer to prove her/his point. Talk the talk and walk the walk. It is simple, just leave Canada and send an open letter to the government notifying them that since you are a Canadian citizen already, NOW you don't intend to live in Canada anymore, and let's see what happens
I call for someone who believes that this clause will not be used against new Canadians to volunteer to prove her/his point. Talk the talk and walk the walk. It is simple, just leave Canada and send an open letter to the government notifying them that since you are a Canadian citizen already, NOW you don't intend to live in Canada anymore, and let's see what happens
I will volunteer for that.asaif said:The only way to know what the government is planning to use this clause for is to give it a try.
I call for someone who believes that this clause will not be used against new Canadians to volunteer to prove her/his point. Talk the talk and walk the walk. It is simple, just leave Canada and send an open letter to the government notifying them that since you are a Canadian citizen already, NOW you don't intend to live in Canada anymore, and let's see what happens
Actually I can give them the letter right after the Oath, so I will have witnesses. ;D
Now you are contradicting yourself. First you imply that this clause will not be used against new Canadians who leave Canada after getting the citizenship. Then you are "all for it" because these individuals deserve to be "questioned". Everyone knows exactly why this clause is here, some agree with it and some don't. I respect both sides. Just don't pretend that this clause is put in the law without the deliberate intention to go after a class of new Canadians whom the government consider "problematic".polara69 said:
Great. Although you don't exactly qualify as a typical example of the groups usually targeted by this governmentMUFC said:
But will do.I hestitate to contribute any more to the nonsense about section 5(1)(c.1) constituting any threat to naturalized citizens because after becoming a citizen they decide to go abroad to live or work. There is absolutely no risk of this.
Sure, there is a risk for applicants who do have plans, while the application is in process, to go abroad after becoming a citizen. DUH! Fraud is a crime. Get caught, go to jail, lose citizenship. No algebra in this equation.
Thing is, if an applicant is issued RQ and fails to disclose material facts about ties abroad, even if he stays in Canada forever, that was fraud: if he gets caught, he goes to jail, loses citizenship. No advanced degrees in astrophysics necessary to figure this one out.
What the law says rules. And the Charter is the primary law; the Charter trumps statutes adopted by the Parliament.
Except relative to section 5(1)(c.1) (the so-called intent requirement) the Charter is not implicated at all because section 5(1)(c.1) explicitly has no application to citizens. If there was a differently worded intent requirement, worded in a way which could possibly allow for an interpretation that would impact the mobility rights of citizens, the Charter would be implicated, the courts would not be afraid to either strike it down completely or limit its interpretation and application in a way that would not negatively have an impact on the mobility rights of citizens.
Nobody is really fooling anybody as to what this is about. While I tend to doubt it has been anywhere near the problem the Tories have long complained about, there is no doubt that there are at least a significant number of people who have come to Canada with the primary if not exclusive objective of obtaining the Canadian passport, with minimal if any intention to become an in-fact, member of Canadian society citizen.
Their path to citizenship just got longer, more difficult, and subject to more pitfalls. And the narcissistic whining can be heard from coast to coast. To no avail, it warrants noting. Honest, sincere, legitimate applicants are not going to be intimidated by this red herring.
Those who honestly, accurately, and completely provide required information have absolutely nothing to worry about. Once they are a citizen they are totally free to live anywhere in the world without fear the government will target their citizenship status because they have moved abroad.
The only ones who will really fear the impact of section 5(1)(c.1) are those who planned to take-the-oath-on-the-way-to-the-airport. And sure, if they attempt to follow through with such a plan, they have reason to fear. Not just invalid citizenship looms for them, but the possibility of time behind bars.
By the way, for those who believe they have reason to fear government abuse because of illegitimate motives, they are many, many other ways the government can, if inclined, impair their rights, destroy their lives. Few of us live with such paranoia. Reasonable people do not. This red herring is in similar stead as those (lots of colourfully descriptive, not so flattering adjectives come to mind) Americans paranoid the government is coming to take their guns away so it can take away all their freedoms.
Sure, there is a risk for applicants who do have plans, while the application is in process, to go abroad after becoming a citizen. DUH! Fraud is a crime. Get caught, go to jail, lose citizenship. No algebra in this equation.
Thing is, if an applicant is issued RQ and fails to disclose material facts about ties abroad, even if he stays in Canada forever, that was fraud: if he gets caught, he goes to jail, loses citizenship. No advanced degrees in astrophysics necessary to figure this one out.
Canada is governed by the rule of law. This is real. This is how it really works. The law does matter. And the courts in Canada are not afraid to stand up to the sitting government when it overreaches.rayman_m said:
What the law says rules. And the Charter is the primary law; the Charter trumps statutes adopted by the Parliament.
Except relative to section 5(1)(c.1) (the so-called intent requirement) the Charter is not implicated at all because section 5(1)(c.1) explicitly has no application to citizens. If there was a differently worded intent requirement, worded in a way which could possibly allow for an interpretation that would impact the mobility rights of citizens, the Charter would be implicated, the courts would not be afraid to either strike it down completely or limit its interpretation and application in a way that would not negatively have an impact on the mobility rights of citizens.
Again, let us be clear: absolutely, lie in the application, best case scenario is forever looking over your shoulder, with the downside possibility of prison time and revocation of citizenship. This includes failing to disclose, if asked, property interests abroad. This includes concealing the pursuit of job opportunities abroad while the application is pending. Put a down payment on a home abroad before taking the oath: DUH!rayman_m said:
Nobody is really fooling anybody as to what this is about. While I tend to doubt it has been anywhere near the problem the Tories have long complained about, there is no doubt that there are at least a significant number of people who have come to Canada with the primary if not exclusive objective of obtaining the Canadian passport, with minimal if any intention to become an in-fact, member of Canadian society citizen.
Their path to citizenship just got longer, more difficult, and subject to more pitfalls. And the narcissistic whining can be heard from coast to coast. To no avail, it warrants noting. Honest, sincere, legitimate applicants are not going to be intimidated by this red herring.
Those who honestly, accurately, and completely provide required information have absolutely nothing to worry about. Once they are a citizen they are totally free to live anywhere in the world without fear the government will target their citizenship status because they have moved abroad.
The only ones who will really fear the impact of section 5(1)(c.1) are those who planned to take-the-oath-on-the-way-to-the-airport. And sure, if they attempt to follow through with such a plan, they have reason to fear. Not just invalid citizenship looms for them, but the possibility of time behind bars.
By the way, for those who believe they have reason to fear government abuse because of illegitimate motives, they are many, many other ways the government can, if inclined, impair their rights, destroy their lives. Few of us live with such paranoia. Reasonable people do not. This red herring is in similar stead as those (lots of colourfully descriptive, not so flattering adjectives come to mind) Americans paranoid the government is coming to take their guns away so it can take away all their freedoms.
