marcus66502 said:
Back to topic, I honestly don't believe there's going to be even a trace of the feared massive witch hunt for any "non-intenders" who may have left Canada after the grant of citizenship. Logistical and resource problems aside, it's going to be damn near impossible to get a Federal Court declaration of misrepresentation of intent based solely on actions after the grant of citizenship, because those are in no way indicative of pre-oath intent. They would need evidence of lack of intent before the oath. If you start looking for jobs abroad while your application is still in process, why then you'd have nobody to blame but yourself.
It's your last sentence that's problematic -- it assumes that 'intent' can be clearly read from actions. How about the following situations?
- PR applies for citizenship, goes home to visit parent; parent is seriously ill, PR stays to take care of them. What's their intent?
- Parents apply for citizenship with children; 17 year old daughter applies to study for one year in university in home. Wants to stay for four years, come back to Canada afterwards. What's her intent?
- Immigrant fills citizenship requirements, wants to join a missionary organization for a year's posting abroad. What's their intent?
- PR applies for citizenship, loses job -- but finds a good opportunity in the Gulf. They want to take it, use it as a foothold to come back to Canada; it's easier to find a professional job when you already have a professional job. What's their intent?
In all of these situations, a birth-Canadian would feel free to do whatever they wanted. An immigrant Canadian is not going to feel free to do what they want. Even if there is no witch-hunt at all, the 'intent' clause is a burden on them. That's what people are missing, it's bad faith to argue that unless there are revocations, this clause is meaningless -- what it does is remove a fundamental strut of Canadian citizenship, which is security. This is particularly true, because the Canadian government reserves the right to go back and revise citizenship decisions that were made decades ago, meaning that if the definition or evidentiary proof of 'intent' changes 20 years from now, actions taken around the time of the oath can be revisited.
Here's an example of the latter: http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/15/i-cant-be-stateless-born-in-canada-criminal-fighting-deportation-after-ottawa-decides-citizenship-not-valid/
The man in question received two Canadian passports prior to having his citizenship revoked; which prevented him (or his parents) from taking actions that would have secured his citizenship at the time.