Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[Sharif11]

Frustrated again! :-\

 

[ghatot201]

It is not true, you can challenge before as well, If there is anything in the bill which is unconstitutional or against citizenship rights, it can be challenge in the court, and one can get the stay order till the hearing. It will delay the process, and if the lawyer has strong arguments like it is mentioned above, it can be instructed by the courts to make amendments. It does not necessarily mean that courts are making the law. It is also the responsibility of the supreme court to ensure that nothing against the constitution shall become the part of any immigration law. Also remember you are not challenging the law, but you are challenging the bill.

This guy challenges a small part of the bill which is inconsequential to most of us. This does not mean that the rest of the bill won't be passed. Yes, you are right the process will be delayed, but I tend to agree with Matt the Aussie who said the parts not under challenge will proceed as usual and that is the part which affects all of us.

 

[Sharif11]

This guy challenges a small part of the bill which is inconsequential to most of us. This does not mean that the rest of the bill won't be passed. Yes, you are right the process will be delayed, but I tend to agree with Matt the Aussie who said the parts not under challenge will proceed as usual and that is the part which affects all of us.

Perhaps he will find other flaws in the bill!

 

[ghatot201]

Perhaps he will find other flaws in the bill!

He had more than sufficient time to do that. If he has'nt until now then he is never going to!!

 

[O_Ca]

His contact details are below, please support him :

ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Rocco Galati, B A., LL.B., LL M.
1062 College Street
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H lA9
Tel: (416) 530-9684
Fax: (416) 530-8129
Email: rocco@idirect.com

 

[us2yow]

Also, don't forget that there are MANY MANY dual citizens in Canada ! including but not limited to many White Canadians (if you want to make a twisted argument that they would like to see the law in favour of the majority)...well there you have it....there are many many dual citizens from Europe, UK incl. Aus and NZ (I think the last 2 allow for dual cit).

Either way, the way its been handled overall has been non-transparent and non-inclusive so far.... overall doesn't bode well for them in the long term....the Love Factor for the Cons is falling into the double negative digits slowly but steadily...at this rate... its Arrivederci ! What goes around...ultimately does come around....Law of Nature.... remember this is a democracy and govt isn't the same old one from 35 years ago !

Lets rejoice in democracy ! and meanwhile....Senore Rocco..... three shout outs to you ! Hip Hip Hurray !

 

[Matt the Aussie]

I know for sure Australia allows dual citizenship, as of about 10-15 years ago.

 

[Hasher]

His contact details are below, please support him :

ROCCO GALATI LAW FIRM
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Rocco Galati, B A., LL.B., LL M.
1062 College Street
Lower Level
Toronto, ON M6H lA9
Tel: (416) 530-9684
Fax: (416) 530-8129
Email: rocco @ idirect.com

We all should send e-mail to this man, "WE SUPPORT YOU PLEASE SUPPORT THE DUAL NATIONAL OF CANADA"

Dual Nationality should not be a crime that take people to live a life of fear and discrimination in Canada. The matter is not limited to 4/6 year residency requirement, that is nothing at all to worried about, the matter is about the future of Dual Nationals and their generations.

We have to tell each and every dual national that this bill will victimize you and your coming generations, so do not vote to Cons and also make sure any other party who wants your support for next election must rise against this bill.

 

[ghatot201]

Hi Mr. Rocco,
First and foremost I would like to thank you for your initiative and for your conviction that Bill C-24 has serious flaws. It is wonderful to see upstanding citizens like yourself stand up and challenge this gross injustice perpetrated by the Harper government.
While I am grateful that you have raised the issue about protecting the birth right of Canadian born citizens, I am surprised that neither you nor your esteemed colleagues at the CBA see it fit to address the other aspects of the same bill and challenge it.
I would not want to bore you with my story, but would like to mention a few key points.....

Bring on the Brick bats !!

 

[paw339]

I dont think living an extra year before citizenship would be an issue for political parties, including Liberals and NDP and human rights groups. The worried part is clarity on time spent outside canada by a Canadian Citizen. If they are bringing the clause "Intend to Live in Canada". What are the actions government is going to take if a Canadian Citizen lives outside Canada. I haven't read the bill in detail and seniors can pitch in here. I think in that case your citizenship can be revoked. If government do not want any action for citizens who live outside Canada, then what is the point of bringing an "Intend to Live in canada" clause in Citizenship application. It is merely an administrative thing.

rajmalhotra; When New Zealand introduced a "intend to reside" clause, I believe no action was ever taken against any new Kiwi's because their circumstances or plans changed and they left New Zealand. It just stopped immigrants gaining Citizenship and leaving the next day (often to Australia). So provided you hadn't actually made plans to leave; booked flights or applied for overseas jobs etc before you obtained Citizenship you were unaffected. I believe there were a few individual's who had booked a one way ticket out of New Zealand before taking their oath and they had their oath ceremony cancelled because they obviously had no "intend to reside".

 

[Matt the Aussie]

Good point, NZ passport holders do have certain automatic rights in Australia.

 

[u4g5]

the house will do another (last?) debate on c-24 at 10 pm which means the vote for 3rd reading is coming soon. The bill will definitely move to senate this week and we will see it going through in 2 weeks.

 

[Eazeetrade]

http://thelinkpaper.ca/?p=38214

One of the critical missteps of the Conservatives Bill C-24 is the requirement that naturalized citizens must declare their “intent to reside”. This provision would require potential citizens to sign that they will live in Canada after they gain citizenship. Unfortunately this clause is written vaguely, leaving many concerned that it will impose unnecessary travel restrictions on Canadians.

By Jasbir Sandhu
Member of Parliament – Surrey North

Canada is a country that proudly recognizes and embraces diversity. As a nation, we pride ourselves on being a welcoming and inclusive community. As the basis of our multicultural identity, our citizenship and immigration system should enhance Canadian society, and all Canadians should be able to access the rights that accompany the title of “Canadian citizen”. As a naturalized citizen myself, I understand the opportunities that our nationality grants us and I am proud to be Canadian.
The government is proposing changes to the current system for citizenship through Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which is currently in front of the House of Commons for debate. The bill does make several notable improvements, such as conferring long-overdue citizenship to the ‘Lost Canadians’ and implementing penalties for fraudulent immigration consultants. Yet other provisions introduce troublesome roadblocks that will prolong naturalization and downgrade many Canadians to second-class citizens.
One of the critical missteps of the bill is the requirement that naturalized citizens must declare their “intent to reside”. This provision would require potential citizens to sign that they will live in Canada after they gain citizenship. Unfortunately this clause is written vaguely, leaving many concerned that it will impose unnecessary travel restrictions on Canadians. At this point, the legislation does not specifically define how long one must reside in Canada and what constitutes a violation. Canadian citizens who travel internationally, including to study or work abroad, could be considered as violating their “intent to reside” commitment. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could then revoke their citizenship under the pretense of fraud. There would be no appeal, no hearing, and no recourse.
Even citizens born in Canada could have their citizenship revoked if they break the law in Canada or abroad. This includes naturalized Canadians who retain citizenship in another country, as well as citizens born in Canada to foreign parents. For example, whereas a Canadian citizen is imprisoned for a certain crime, a dual national who commits the same offense could be exiled, possibly to a country they have never been to before.
I have major concerns about how permanent residents will be able to access citizenship in the first place. Years that applicants, such as international students and live in caregivers, spend in Canada before they are granted permanent residence will no longer count towards the residency requirement for citizenship. By refusing to count this time towards citizenship, Conservatives will delay the naturalization process for these targeted groups, while allowing more favoured groups to proceed at the standard rate.
It is true that the Canadian Citizenship Act needs to be improved; it is considered out dated and inefficient. However, the Strengthening Citizenship Act is a misnomer, because it does not offer effective solutions. It drives immigrants out with its discriminatory tones, rather than welcoming them in with open arms. It strips naturalized citizens of their due rights, trapping them in a lower tier of society.
The main issue with Citizenship and Immigration Canada is the absurd backlogs. The standard processing times for a citizenship application to be processed is 24 months, yet I routinely see applications that take much longer in my office. This is unacceptable. However, rather than productively addressing the backlog, the Conservative solution appears to be creating longer wait times before a permanent resident could apply for citizenship.
If the goal is really to strengthen our citizenship and immigration system, then we must promote language education and healthy job markets, rather than erecting senseless barriers and stripping equal protections. Strengthening Canadian citizenship is not about advancing this government’s political and ideological agenda.
Conservatives continue to fail Canadians by prioritizing their own goals rather than putting Canadians first. Along with my NDP colleagues, I will continue to fight for a fair, efficient, transparent and accountable immigration system.

 

[Sharif11]

http://thelinkpaper.ca/?p=38214

One of the critical missteps of the Conservatives Bill C-24 is the requirement that naturalized citizens must declare their “intent to reside”. This provision would require potential citizens to sign that they will live in Canada after they gain citizenship. Unfortunately this clause is written vaguely, leaving many concerned that it will impose unnecessary travel restrictions on Canadians.

By Jasbir Sandhu
Member of Parliament – Surrey North

Canada is a country that proudly recognizes and embraces diversity. As a nation, we pride ourselves on being a welcoming and inclusive community. As the basis of our multicultural identity, our citizenship and immigration system should enhance Canadian society, and all Canadians should be able to access the rights that accompany the title of “Canadian citizen”. As a naturalized citizen myself, I understand the opportunities that our nationality grants us and I am proud to be Canadian.
The government is proposing changes to the current system for citizenship through Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, which is currently in front of the House of Commons for debate. The bill does make several notable improvements, such as conferring long-overdue citizenship to the ‘Lost Canadians' and implementing penalties for fraudulent immigration consultants. Yet other provisions introduce troublesome roadblocks that will prolong naturalization and downgrade many Canadians to second-class citizens.
One of the critical missteps of the bill is the requirement that naturalized citizens must declare their “intent to reside”. This provision would require potential citizens to sign that they will live in Canada after they gain citizenship. Unfortunately this clause is written vaguely, leaving many concerned that it will impose unnecessary travel restrictions on Canadians. At this point, the legislation does not specifically define how long one must reside in Canada and what constitutes a violation. Canadian citizens who travel internationally, including to study or work abroad, could be considered as violating their “intent to reside” commitment. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration could then revoke their citizenship under the pretense of fraud. There would be no appeal, no hearing, and no recourse.
Even citizens born in Canada could have their citizenship revoked if they break the law in Canada or abroad. This includes naturalized Canadians who retain citizenship in another country, as well as citizens born in Canada to foreign parents. For example, whereas a Canadian citizen is imprisoned for a certain crime, a dual national who commits the same offense could be exiled, possibly to a country they have never been to before.
I have major concerns about how permanent residents will be able to access citizenship in the first place. Years that applicants, such as international students and live in caregivers, spend in Canada before they are granted permanent residence will no longer count towards the residency requirement for citizenship. By refusing to count this time towards citizenship, Conservatives will delay the naturalization process for these targeted groups, while allowing more favoured groups to proceed at the standard rate.
It is true that the Canadian Citizenship Act needs to be improved; it is considered out dated and inefficient. However, the Strengthening Citizenship Act is a misnomer, because it does not offer effective solutions. It drives immigrants out with its discriminatory tones, rather than welcoming them in with open arms. It strips naturalized citizens of their due rights, trapping them in a lower tier of society.
The main issue with Citizenship and Immigration Canada is the absurd backlogs. The standard processing times for a citizenship application to be processed is 24 months, yet I routinely see applications that take much longer in my office. This is unacceptable. However, rather than productively addressing the backlog, the Conservative solution appears to be creating longer wait times before a permanent resident could apply for citizenship.
If the goal is really to strengthen our citizenship and immigration system, then we must promote language education and healthy job markets, rather than erecting senseless barriers and stripping equal protections. Strengthening Canadian citizenship is not about advancing this government's political and ideological agenda.
Conservatives continue to fail Canadians by prioritizing their own goals rather than putting Canadians first. Along with my NDP colleagues, I will continue to fight for a fair, efficient, transparent and accountable immigration system.

Won't help unfortunately!

 

[txboyscout]

It is unfortunate that this Galati person is grandstanding and toying with the emotions of a lot of people

No Court in Canada can prevent Parliament from making law---they can rule that a law passed by Parliament is unconstitutional and nullify it but they cannot prevent Parliament from passing it.

So, Galati can go to court all he wants, he is not going to get anywhere....

Unfortunately, this is just an attempt to gain notreity for himself (and I hope and pray that he is not bilking poor immigrants of financial resources in the process)