Yes, he is most incompetent minister in Harper regime does not even know what he wants to say to the media and public..Sad..hussinhamid said:did you look at his face when he said that , he didn't tell the truth .he was hiding some thing !!!
Sorry to burst your bubble, I think the law is intentionally written to be vague and confusing. There are two pieces of information in the two paragraphs:S khan said:Thanks a lot for your response. And let me try to heal your concerns.
Your concern
"Now the minister can tell you what he really meant to say was "intends, until the Oath ceremony," but what he wrote in the bill is "intends, if granted citizenship".
That's incorrect. IF you just scroll little bit down to the subsection 5.1 of the Bill the law clearly states that :
[size=10pt]1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c.1) and 11(1)(d.1), the person's intention must be continuous from the date of his or her application until they have taken the oath of citizenship.[/size]
Exactly! Alexander is trying to fool us!anon123 said:Sorry to burst your bubble, I think the law is intentionally written to be vague and confusing. There are two pieces of information in the two paragraphs:
1) What is the applicant's intent?
To reside in Canada from the day they are granted citizenship until they die.
2) When does the applicant have this intent?
From the day he/she signs the application until the Oath ceremony.
There is no requirement for you to remain in Canada while CIC is processing the application as long as you have evidence that your stay outside of Canada is temporary and will end once you are granted citizenship. The most the Minister can do is refuse to grant you citizenship, but you will still be a PR and can (hopefully) use the judicial system in Canada to prove your application was rejected unjustly.
But once you become a citizen, if you leave Canada for any reason other than the listed (to work for the government or to accompany a Canadian working for the government) the Minister may revoke your citizenship if he/she is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that during that period between your application and the Oath ceremony you did not have the intent to reside in Canada after getting citizenship, even if you were residing in Canada at that time. If he/she revokes your citizenship you have no right of appeal and you will not be allowed in Canada, because you cease to be PR once you become citizen. That's the big problem with bill C-24.
And it is really scary. The only obligation of the Minister is to notify you by mail to your "last known address in Canada". It is just a notification that your citizenship is under review, not a hearing. Who will keep updating CIC after he/she gets citizenship whenever they move, just in case the Minister decides to revoke their citizenship? Nobody. In practice, a naturalized citizen will not know if his/her citizenship has been revoked until one shiny day when he/she leaves Canada an tries to reenter, just to be deported to where they were born.wuming said:Exactly! Alexander is trying to fool us!
The "intend to reside" clause is a popular change among Canadians from what I can tell. This obviously is a major problem for anyone who doesn't "intend to reside" because they are the actual target of the changes not some innocent victim. But is this change fair? For future immigrants obviously yes, as they will know the rules before they apply/arrive. But what about someone who has been in Canada for a number of years, who is following the rules and is planning to get Canadian Citizenship, then leave; perhaps only to return to Canada if there is a disaster at home or to use Canada as their retirement location? They've invested a lot of time and effort on their plan, but then suddenly the rules have been changed on them retroactively, is that fair? I suppose it depends on whether you take a rules based approach to immigration or an more holistic or "spirit of the law" type approach. If you take a rules based approach, then retroactively applying the "intend to reside" clause to existing immigrants is definitely unfair, but if you take a more holistic or "spirit of the law" type approach then you would probably say it is fair because Canadian Citizenship was never intended to be an insurance policy or a passport of convenience.anon123 said:If he/she revokes your citizenship you have no right of appeal and you will not be allowed in Canada, because you cease to be PR once you become citizen. That's the big problem with bill C-24.
The intent-to-reside clause is popular with native Canadians because they feel that too many Canadian passports are being handed out like candy to naturalized citizens who leave Canada for years. So they feel as if these naturalized citizens aren't truly Canadian if they live abroad for long periods of time. The trouble with this is that it's a knife that cuts both ways. Native-born Canadians would certainly like that freedom for themselves: to be able to go live and work in the US for years or decades without losing their Canadian citizenship.paw339 said:The "intend to reside" clause is a popular change among Canadians from what I can tell. This obviously is a major problem for anyone who doesn't "intend to reside" because they are the actual target of the changes not some innocent victim. But is this change fair? For future immigrants obviously yes, as they will know the rules before they apply/arrive. But what about someone who has been in Canada for a number of years, who is following the rules and is planning to get Canadian Citizenship, then leave; perhaps only to return to Canada if there is a disaster at home or to use Canada as their retirement location? They've invested a lot of time and effort on their plan, but then suddenly the rules have been changed on them retroactively, is that fair? I suppose it depends on whether you take a rules based approach to immigration or an more holistic or "spirit of the law" type approach. If you take a rules based approach, then retroactively applying the "intend to reside" clause to existing immigrants is definitely unfair, but if you take a more holistic or "spirit of the law" type approach then you would probably say it is fair because Canadian Citizenship was never intended to be an insurance policy or a passport of convenience.
The lack of the right of appeal if your Citizenship is removed because the minister is convinced you never had the "intend to reside" is an issue that needs to be addressed and will probably be the subject of a constitutional appeal.
But as I've said before, New Zealand introduced an "intend to reside" clause and the only individuals affected were those that were actively planning on leaving before they received their citizenship and they were the actual target of the changes. It never caused problems for Citizen's whose circumstances changed after they received citizenship and subsequently left New Zealand. Although if the "intend to reside" clause applies to you it would probably be risky to leave Canada permanently less than 12 months after getting your Citizenship unless there is an obvious and unexpected change to your circumstances.
I guess you need to read my answer again and again. Everything is very clear there. But if some people don't wanna understand its there choice. In either way weather they like it or not this bill gonna pass.anon123 said:Sorry to burst your bubble, I think the law is intentionally written to be vague and confusing. There are two pieces of information in the two paragraphs:
1) What is the applicant's intent?
To reside in Canada from the day they are granted citizenship until they die.
2) When does the applicant have this intent?
From the day he/she signs the application until the Oath ceremony.
There is no requirement for you to remain in Canada while CIC is processing the application as long as you have evidence that your stay outside of Canada is temporary and will end once you are granted citizenship. The most the Minister can do is refuse to grant you citizenship, but you will still be a PR and can (hopefully) use the judicial system in Canada to prove your application was rejected unjustly.
But once you become a citizen, if you leave Canada for any reason other than the listed (to work for the government or to accompany a Canadian working for the government) the Minister may revoke your citizenship if he/she is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that during that period between your application and the Oath ceremony you did not have the intent to reside in Canada after getting citizenship, even if you were residing in Canada at that time. If he/she revokes your citizenship you have no right of appeal and you will not be allowed in Canada, because you cease to be PR once you become citizen. That's the big problem with bill C-24.
A lot of the changes New Zealand made to their immigration system seem to be making there way to Canada, including the new expression of interest system.zardoz said:While what happens in New Zealand is very interesting, it's completely irrelevant to Canada. You might just as well quote Japanese citizenship legislation. The Bill we have to face is the one presented by the Canadian Government and none other.