Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[Tolerance]

I meant that they don't intend to ever go back to Canada. Sorry for not being clear.

I support LEGITIMATE immigration. Not abuse of the system. And getting Canadian citizenship, but not for the purpose of residing in Canada and participating in Canadian society is abuse.

This abuse is just the same as a marriage of convenience in order to get PR. If you think it's OK for someone to marry for the sole purpose of immigrating, then you need to get the heck out of here...

Again, you are making assumptions, it is offensive, and it does not contribute to a civilised discussion. So, tone it down please.

 

[on-hold]

Basic definition of citizenship, from wikipedia:
A duty of a citizen in Canada is to participate. From Discover Canada (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/discover/section-04.asp):
Note -- it's pretty hard to do points 3, 4, 5 and 6 if you're not living here. Furthermore, point #2 mentions contributing to Canada's prosperity... again, difficult to do if you're not living and working here.

Intent is based on circumstances. When you sign it, you know whether your intent is to reside here, or if it is to leave and never come back.

You, too, are missing the point. The issue isn't living somewhere else -- it's why you sought Canadian citizenship. If you're seeking it because you find it difficult to travel with a Middle Eastern passport, that's a BAD reason.

Yes, these are the duties of citizenship. Would you support making all Canadians, by naturalization or by birth, swear an oath at the border that they intend to return? Those who aren't back within a year automatically lose their citizenship. They're violating the contract.

I have other duties of citizenship. They include being a responsible Canadian citizen of the world; representing Canadian values by working abroad, serving abroad, supporting Canadian values where they are shared abroad; supporting freedoms for other Canadians, including travel.

As for the weaselly 'intent is based on circumstances' -- it isn't! 'Intent' is OBVIOUSLY what you intend to do, it has nothing to do with circumstances. What you're saying is, 'intent' is violated when you have anything in your life that makes CIC think you might want to go live abroad. That is what 'circumstances' means.

Of course, the fact that your example is someone from the Middle East shows the foundation of your beliefs; not to mention the absurd speculation that someone would give up 4+ years of their life so they don't have to apply for travel visas.

 

[on-hold]

I meant that they don't intend to ever go back to Canada. Sorry for not being clear.

I support LEGITIMATE immigration. Not abuse of the system. And getting Canadian citizenship, but not for the purpose of residing in Canada and participating in Canadian society is abuse.

This abuse is just the same as a marriage of convenience in order to get PR. If you think it's OK for someone to marry for the sole purpose of immigrating, then you need to get the heck out of here...

Since when did an American get to decide what 'legitimate' immigration is in Canada? Shouldn't you be hanging out on the Rio Grande with a gun, threatening guys who are trying to come over to pick your vegetables and support their families?

 

[us2yow]

Look at it this way guys, Parents can have control over their kids "dependent on them" as long as they turn 18.

Similarly, CIC is planning to have control over you as long as you "behave" like a good kid/citizen to be and until you receive grant of citizenship.

What you do later, out of personal choice or circumstances just like any other earlier naturalized or native born Canadian has done and will do, is entirely up to you.

If someone has gone to do something noble like taking care of an aging parent at some stage (unlike here where out of choice/circumstances/lifestyle elders are just pretty much left to fend for themselves), then more power to such people for that good karma as a "Canadian citizen" for being helpful to someone who really needs taking care of (in this instance, family).

 

[doctorkb]

Since when did an American get to decide what 'legitimate' immigration is in Canada? Shouldn't you be hanging out on the Rio Grande with a gun, threatening guys who are trying to come over to pick your vegetables and support their families?

My wife's the American. We've been dealing with delays and headaches from an immigration system that is broken because of too many abusers.

Maybe you don't like everything that is in this Citizenship Reform act. Quite frankly, if you're arguing that living here for three years entitles you to citizenship, you're not looking to the responsibilities, just the benefits.

I'm all for getting contributing members early and quick access to Canada -- both in terms of residency and citizenship. But contributing doesn't mean taking all your money and sending it back to your family in your previous country while you work as a TFW, meanwhile putting a would-be contributing citizen out of work. Contributing also doesn't mean leaving once you get citizenship with no intent to return to Canada.

 

[torontosm]

Since when did an American get to decide what 'legitimate' immigration is in Canada? Shouldn't you be hanging out on the Rio Grande with a gun, threatening guys who are trying to come over to pick your vegetables and support their families?

This is more offensive than anything @doktorkb has said!

 

[Tolerance]

Since when did an American get to decide what 'legitimate' immigration is in Canada? Shouldn't you be hanging out on the Rio Grande with a gun, threatening guys who are trying to come over to pick your vegetables and support their families?

It seems we are getting new definitions by the day, as if those made my Alexander are not enough (if you look up 'bogus refugees' you will find a lot of articles on his famous coinage). Legitimate immigration and abuse of the system are awesome. Every time you are cornered with logic, make another fake definition.

Again, I still don't understand how it does not bother some people that Canadian-born folks without dual citizenship won't have to worry about any of these problems. Except when the government revokes their spouse's or their kid's citizenship

 

[on-hold]

My wife's the American. We've been dealing with delays and headaches from an immigration system that is broken because of too many abusers.

Maybe you don't like everything that is in this Citizenship Reform act. Quite frankly, if you're arguing that living here for three years entitles you to citizenship, you're not looking to the responsibilities, just the benefits.

I'm all for getting contributing members early and quick access to Canada -- both in terms of residency and citizenship. But contributing doesn't mean taking all your money and sending it back to your family in your previous country while you work as a TFW, meanwhile putting a would-be contributing citizen out of work. Contributing also doesn't mean leaving once you get citizenship with no intent to return to Canada.

I assume your wife has given up her American passport? She has no intent to live there, does she?

 

[CanV]

Yes, as you said in your own post, immigration levels have increased under this government. That was my point. Now if Cons were truly "racist", would they do that, or would they seek to reverse the trend and allow less immigrants into Canada? Also, the Cons were the ones, rightly or wrongly, who created the whole TFW mess. Like it or not, they did allow in more foreigners and provide a path to PR for them.

How the immigrants feel about a government is irrelevant to the government's immigration policies. The same immigrants that are complaining about c-24 all received their PR's under the current conservative government. I bet they felt pretty good about the Conservatives when they received their COPR in the mail.

Reading the various threads in this forum, it seems like the Cons just can't win. You criticize them for cutting down on FSW, while others criticize them for not having enough jobs in Canada for FSW's that were previously allowed in. You call them racist while others abuse them for allowing in too many foreigners under TFW. Make up your minds!

Do you realize that immigration policies come before laws? Policies will not change regardless of the party in power. Canada will still take 300-400k a year until a policy has changed. This is beyond any political parties control. So to answer your question, no they have not decreased it BECAUSE THEY CAN'T.

 

[Tolerance]

My wife's the American. We've been dealing with delays and headaches from an immigration system that is broken because of too many abusers.

Maybe you don't like everything that is in this Citizenship Reform act. Quite frankly, if you're arguing that living here for three years entitles you to citizenship, you're not looking to the responsibilities, just the benefits.

I'm all for getting contributing members early and quick access to Canada -- both in terms of residency and citizenship. But contributing doesn't mean taking all your money and sending it back to your family in your previous country while you work as a TFW, meanwhile putting a would-be contributing citizen out of work. Contributing also doesn't mean leaving once you get citizenship with no intent to return to Canada.

Oh, this just keeps getting better and better . I suggest we include that, plus any other bigotry we can come up with here, in the Bill. But wait, the Cons won't let anybody change a word of it !

 

[on-hold]

This is more offensive than anything @ doktorkb has said!

It's indisputable that large numbers of people come from Latin America to work in agriculture in America; and it's also indisputable that there are a lot of American yahoos who have formed creepy, violent citizen gangs to threaten them as they cross the border.

What's offensive about pointing either of those things out?

 

[torontosm]

Do you realize that immigration policies come before laws? Policies will not change regardless of the party in power. Canada will still take 300-400k a year until a policy has changed. This is beyond any political parties control. So to answer your question, no they have not decreased it BECAUSE THEY CAN'T.

You seem to be confused. In your mind, if not the government, who exactly determines policy? Are you saying policies are dictated by some third party and are set in stone? If so, then why even bother electing a government?

The Cons can change immigration policies whenever they want, as they have done with sub-areas such as refugees and TFW's.

 

[doctorkb]

Yes, these are the duties of citizenship. Would you support making all Canadians, by naturalization or by birth, swear an oath at the border that they intend to return? Those who aren't back within a year automatically lose their citizenship. They're violating the contract.

No, but I would change the suffrage laws to REQUIRE that all citizens vote. I'd also change the jury duty rules that don't permit you exception simply because you're out of the country, or not residing in that area.

I have other duties of citizenship. They include being a responsible Canadian citizen of the world; representing Canadian values by working abroad, serving abroad, supporting Canadian values where they are shared abroad; supporting freedoms for other Canadians, including travel.

Don't see those listed as fundamental duties from Discover Canada... just sayin'.

As for the weaselly 'intent is based on circumstances' -- it isn't! 'Intent' is OBVIOUSLY what you intend to do, it has nothing to do with circumstances. What you're saying is, 'intent' is violated when you have anything in your life that makes CIC think you might want to go live abroad. That is what 'circumstances' means.

What I intend to do this weekend is entirely based on my circumstances right now. If I fall and break my leg this afternoon, I won't be mowing the lawn tomorrow, like I intend to.

Declaring your intent to reside in Canada following naturalization is based on your circumstances when you make the declaration. If your parents fall ill the week after you are naturalized, your circumstances have changed and I'd see nothing wrong with you leaving indefinitely (or forever) to take care of that situation. I suspect the gov't wouldn't take issue either.

Of course, the fact that your example is someone from the Middle East shows the foundation of your beliefs; not to mention the absurd speculation that someone would give up 4+ years of their life so they don't have to apply for travel visas.

So why are we arguing here? If nobody would do this, why is it a problem to have someone state their intent to live here?

 

[Matt the Aussie]

Basic definition of citizenship, from wikipedia:
A duty of a citizen in Canada is to participate. From Discover Canada (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/discover/section-04.asp):
Note -- it's pretty hard to do points 3, 4, 5 and 6 if you're not living here. Furthermore, point #2 mentions contributing to Canada's prosperity... again, difficult to do if you're not living and working here.

Intent is based on circumstances. When you sign it, you know whether your intent is to reside here, or if it is to leave and never come back.

You, too, are missing the point. The issue isn't living somewhere else -- it's why you sought Canadian citizenship. If you're seeking it because you find it difficult to travel with a Middle Eastern passport, that's a BAD reason.

So, by your logic pulled directly from Discover Canada, we should immediately send out a worldwide communication to the millions of Canadian born people currently living and working all over the world that they are to return and do jury duty and care for the environment and volunteer somewhere, or else lose their citizenship? Sure as hell they all don't vote, even though it's a "responsibility" of a citizen to do so.

How about the people who are working towards "taking responsibility for oneself and one's family" by working abroad where the opportunities are the greatest, rather than potentially sitting at home on Canadian taxpayer's welfare?

And finally, if you could please tell me how exactly I can prove or disprove an "intent to reside" at a past point in time, I'd be much obliged to hear it.

 

[torontosm]

It's indisputable that large numbers of people come from Latin America to work in agriculture in America; and it's also indisputable that there are a lot of American yahoos who have formed creepy, violent citizen gangs to threaten them as they cross the border.

What's offensive about pointing either of those things out?

Well, by making such a broad statement, you just happened to stereotype all Americans as gun-loving, trigger happy, immigrant hating racists while concurrently painting Mexicans as poverty stricken people who have to resort to theft to feed their families. Racist much?