Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[on-hold]

Lots of countries have the "intend to reside clause" it doesn't cause any problems, you can change your mind if your circumstances change. The huge fuss over this issue by some individuals does make you wonder whether they already have plans to leave Canada as soon as they get citizenship.

Yeah, I hate those citizens of convenience at the Canadian Bar Association! What's it coming to, when even immigrants expect the Charter to apply to them?

As for immigrants 'attacking the troops', that's just inflammatory jingoism.

 

[admontreal]

one way to get rid of the fear is to renounce any other citizenship the person may have and keep canada as the only country of citizenship.

Wow !

Assuming what you said is right (which is absolutely not), what about countries who do not allow such a thing ? I can give you an example, you cannot renounce citizenship from some North African countries, being a citizen of those countries is a duty, not even a right... So what can you do in that case ?

 

[chakrab]

Well I'm glad we agree on this, but why not specify what they mean, clearly, in the bill?

trust me, we agree on a lot of things about this bill. i just dont want to scream around and get fanatical.

my point is that the cons haven't said anything about penalizing someone who dont want to stay in canada in future. think from a lawyer pov. the line says "do you intent to stay in canada" and the cons are saying well you must be since you are applying for citizenship. you can't argue with them on that point.

so may be rather than saying remove the line, the opposition should ask the minister to define the residency terms. just the fact the new immigrants dont want to tick a checkbox that shows intent to stay, doesn't fly with normal citizens. it's making the cons more stronger in the view of their electors.

i hope you get my point.

 

[chakrab]

Wow !

Assuming what you said is right (which is absolutely not), what about countries who do not allow such a thing ? I can give you an example, you cannot renounce citizenship from some North African countries, being a citizen of those countries is a duty, not even a right... So what can you do in that case ?

what i said, was mentioned in the HOC. ugly truth but sadly true. it was their suggestion.

 

[doctorkb]

Well I'm glad we agree on this, but why not specify what they mean, clearly, in the bill?

Because politicians are famous for that. Write it vague, express it how they want, then only revise it to be more specific if the Supreme Court tells them to.

The only time you'll find really specific details written into a law like this is when someone has paid for it. Like this one: http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2008/12/15/daily52.html

 

[admontreal]

what i said, was mentioned in the HOC. ugly truth but sadly true. it was their suggestion.

Yes I know. I just thought you agreed with that (which is your right)


And this makes sense for a lot of Canadian born people.
Also, many Quebecers friends think that I will lose my current citizenship because I applied for the Canadian one, they can't understand the concept of dual citizenship... And they also think it's not fair I would have the priviledges of two countries...

 

[chakrab]

Yes I know. I just thought you agreed with that (which is your right)


And this makes sense for a lot of Canadian born people.
Also, many Quebecers friends think that I will lose my current citizenship because I applied for the Canadian one, they can't understand the concept of dual citizenship... And they also think it's not fair I would have the priviledges of two countries...

it was a sad day when i had to renounce the citizenship of my birth country because it doesn't allow it. i would gladly take the responsibility of dual citizenship (at least with the birth country) even under the cloud of this stupid intend clause.

 

[doctorkb]

From the Charter:
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.

And as far as I've understood, this is not about the right of a citizen -- rather the right of an applicant for citizenship.

Nothing has been said about enforcement of this, nor has it been written ANYWHERE that this intent would need to be declared any time AFTER they have citizenship.

As far as I can tell, this is no more than an additional 'tick' box on the application, and is really no different from the declared residency (or lack of) in Quebec during your PR application. Once you have PR, Quebec can't prevent you from moving there -- but if you show intent to reside in QC prior to your PR, the QC gov't must approve your PR application.

If you were fraudulent in application (i.e. said you weren't going to QC, but intended to all along), your PR would be in jeopardy. Proving that intent would not be easy unless you made public statements to that effect, or had made application to jobs in QC prior to your PR being granted.

 

[Matt the Aussie]

trust me, we agree on a lot of things about this bill. i just dont want to scream around and get fanatical.

my point is that the cons haven't said anything about penalizing someone who dont want to stay in canada in future. think from a lawyer pov. the line says "do you intent to stay in canada" and the cons are saying well you must be since you are applying for citizenship. you can't argue with them on that point.

so may be rather than saying remove the line, the opposition should ask the minister to define the residency terms. just the fact the new immigrants dont want to tick a checkbox that shows intent to stay, doesn't fly with normal citizens. it's making the cons more stronger in the view of their electors.

i hope you get my point.

I do get your point, the majority of Canadians want to see immigrants leave for good, and if they are to stay they should be contributing to Canadian society. This is why the Conservatives enjoy the support they do. Quite frankly, I agree, but a distinction should be made between immigrants and citizens. Once you are a citizen, you are no longer an immigrant. Many Canadians don't seem to get the nuance.

But to the bolded part, the Cons haven't said anything about NOT penalizing someone in this situation either...that concerns me, because a general concept of lawmaking is that laws should be clear and easy to interpret. Making laws that are ambiguous and subject to interpretation only causes judicial delays and confusion from the courts as to how to apply them.

And for the Cons to say that "well you must be since you are applying for citizenship" doesn't make sense if they also need to implement an Intent to Reside clause - clearly they are concerned that people will abuse the system and want a "catch-all" solution to deny or remove citizenship to people subject to their own (at this time private) criteria?

 

[admontreal]

it was a sad day when i had to renounce the citizenship of my birth country because it doesn't allow it. i would gladly take the responsibility of dual citizenship (at least with the birth country) even under the cloud of this stupid intend clause.

I hear you. I would find it very weird not to be a citizen of my country of birth (if I was raised there)...

 

[Tolerance]

Apparently some of you know what 'abusing the system' means, and use it in the same context as 'contributing to the system'. I would be grateful if somebody could explain it.

Whatever you mean by it, you do not place the same burden on non-naturalised citizens when they do the exact same things, such as living abroad (I do vaguely understand the reference to contributing to the system).

 

[chakrab]

I do get your point, the majority of Canadians want to see immigrants leave for good, and if they are to stay they should be contributing to Canadian society. This is why the Conservatives enjoy the support they do. Quite frankly, I agree, but a distinction should be made between immigrants and citizens. Once you are a citizen, you are no longer an immigrant. Many Canadians don't seem to get the nuance.

But to the bolded part, the Cons haven't said anything about NOT penalizing someone in this situation either...that concerns me, because a general concept of lawmaking is that laws should be clear and easy to interpret. Making laws that are ambiguous and subject to interpretation only causes judicial delays and confusion from the courts as to how to apply them.

And for the Cons to say that "well you must be since you are applying for citizenship" doesn't make sense if they also need to implement an Intent to Reside clause - clearly they are concerned that people will abuse the system and want a "catch-all" solution to deny or remove citizenship to people subject to their own (at this time private) criteria?

i think what they really want is to make citizens leaving outside more accountable. irony is, they are getting hurt by their own base so to call, the business people, who came here under the business visa. pour in money and pretend to create jobs and wealth and just left back to their own countries after citizenship. the govt has stopped the business visa recently to prevent that. i believe their real intent is to allow taxes from citizens residing out of canada. but that will be very unpopular as well. so they are in a dilemma on how to stop citizens from leaving the country and save the share of lost taxes. mind you most of them who doing that because of employment. though some have family reasons.

my heart says, citizens wont lose citizenship because of this clause. they will be penalized heavily. stripping them off citizenship (unless the person commits a big fraud) serves them no good.

 

[chakrab]

Apparently some of you know what 'abusing the system' means, and use it in the same context as 'contributing to the system'. I would be grateful if somebody could explain it.

Whatever you mean by it, you do not place the same burden on non-naturalised citizens when they do the exact same things, such as living abroad (I do vaguely understand the reference to contributing to the system).

am sure the govt would do the same on canadians by birth if it didn't affect their electors and vote base. that's one of the reasons why they are not willing to collect taxes from citizens living abroad.

 

[Tolerance]

am sure the govt would do the same on canadians by birth if it didn't affect their electors and vote base. that's one of the reasons why they are not willing to collect taxes from citizens living abroad.

You somehow turned this whole bill into a tax-collection exercise, even though it is obvious taxes are pretty low on the list of priorities for this bill.

 

[doctorkb]

You somehow turned this whole bill into a tax-collection exercise, even though it is obvious taxes are pretty low on the list of priorities for this bill.

Uhm... really? A politician has two goals:
1. get (re-)elected
2. increase the size of his coffers (i.e. increase taxes)

The only time they don't pursue #2 is when it is seen to cause too big of a problem for #1.