Bill C-6: Senate stage

[torontosm]

Funny how you did not address my second point. Simple question. What if the terrorist is someone like the one in Quebec mosque shooting, should they keep their citizenship or get deported where? since you will likely claim that bill c-24 doesn't create a two-tier citizens

I agree with you that the definition of terrorism, particularly as employed by various governments, is broad, vague and often biased. However, I didn't address it as it is not the focus of this bill, or this discussion.

In the Quebec case, if the shooter is convicted of terrorism, there is nowhere to deport him to under international law. So, circumstances and international law dictate the so called "two-tier citizenship", not the Canadian government.

 

[guddylover]

I agree with you that the definition of terrorism, particularly as employed by various governments, is broad, vague and often biased. However, I didn't address it as it is not the focus of this bill, or this discussion.

In the Quebec case, if the shooter is convicted of terrorism, there is nowhere to deport him to under international law. So, circumstances and international law dictate the so called "two-tier citizenship", not the Canadian government.

I guess you are right. The interpretation of all these laws is the main issue. Thanks for being civil all through the convo

 

[Shmak2017]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/dramatic+increase+people+having+canadian+citizenship/12888212/story.html

 

[monalisa]

Guys stop arguing and fighting ;D

Just watch the committee meetings they will bring wittiness to their meetings 8)

 

[jebok79]

PEOPLE WHO WORK HARD TO GET STATUS IN CANADA DESERVES A STRAIGHT UP ANSWER ON THE MATTER OF C-6 PROCESS... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[torontosm]

PEOPLE WHO WORK HARD TO GET STATUS IN CANADA DESERVES A STRAIGHT UP ANSWER ON THE MATTER OF C-6 PROCESS... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The status is clear...the bill is being debated in the Senate.

 

[jebok79]

The status is clear...the bill is being debated in the Senate.

I HOPE IT WILL APPROVE.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

[DirectEnergy]

So you think it makes more sense to keep the terrorist here and use taxpayer dollars to "punish" him

The issue here is not that it makes more or less sense. This is the only possible thing to do for a country that treats its citizenship seriously.
But, if your citizenship is a joke, if it is granted and taken away, and then granted and revoked again at legislators' whim, as if it is a toy in a kids playground, then everything is possible...

 

[Pipeco]

It is true that at the time of the application, if it was found that arrangements were made to resettle somewhere else, then yes, this can be interpreted as a violation of the "intent to reside" clause. So the people you are talking about from 10 years are most likely being investigated for fraud since the intent to reside was only introduced in 2015. If a person, after becoming citizen decided to move somewhere else, then nothing should prevent that.

To be clear C-6 cancel the intend to reside?is'nt it

 

[McClane]

2. How come the dude that kill 5 or 6 at the Quebec mosque wasn't labelled a terrorist despite the Prime Minister and co calling it a terrorist act? I think the reason is that it won't fit their narrative that only dual nationals are capable of committing such crazy crime. It is just sad that terrorism has now been drawn to be parallel with Islam. If the dude that killed them at the mosque was a Muslim then it would have been labelled terrorism. The revocation law is so flawed tho I agree with you that a similar law exist in most western countries, doesn't make it right still.

He has been labeled as a terrorist by the Prime Minister. You said it yourself.

What happens on the legal front is not about a narrative, it is about how terrorism is defined by the law. Essentially, the so-called lone wolves are usually not trialed as terrorists because they do not have a connection with a terrorist organization. It is just extremely hard to prove a motivation (and legally, terrorism is about motivation) if the accused doesn't have direct links with known terrorists. Likes to Trump posts won't cut it, funding from a known terrorist would. It is much easier to prove multiple first degree murders. A terrorism charge wouldn't add to the sentence, anyway.

 

[egghead]

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned on this thread involves the date calculator. Bill C-24 changed the law in that "same day" trips counted as an absence. We live close to the border and cross regularly for numerous reasons. It adds up to months of absences over our three or four years. Does anyone know if C-6 changes this back to the previous situation when day trips did not count as an absence? Thanks

 

[spyfy]

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned on this thread involves the date calculator. Bill C-24 changed the law in that "same day" trips counted as an absence. We live close to the border and cross regularly for numerous reasons. It adds up to months of absences over our three or four years. Does anyone know if C-6 changes this back to the previous situation when day trips did not count as an absence? Thanks

I don't know where you got that from. The current CIC FAQ states
When calculating an absence, neither the day you leave Canada nor the day you return is considered an absence. Both are counted as days of physical presence. For example, an absence between July 1, 2013 and July 15, 2013 equals 13 days of absence. As another example, if you leave Canada on July 1, 2013 and return on July 2, 2013, this equals 0 days of absence. You must still declare this as an absence.

 

[egghead]

I don't know where you got that from. The current CIC FAQ states
When calculating an absence, neither the day you leave Canada nor the day you return is considered an absence. Both are counted as days of physical presence. For example, an absence between July 1, 2013 and July 15, 2013 equals 13 days of absence. As another example, if you leave Canada on July 1, 2013 and return on July 2, 2013, this equals 0 days of absence. You must still declare this as an absence.

Thanks, I see that now. That is interesting because it didn't used to say that. So, apparently you have to declare that you left the country but it doesn't count against you.

 

[Hasan9999]

Dear Members,

Any feedback would be appreciated!

Under new Canadian immigration Bill C-6, a permanent resident will be able to apply for citizenship if spends 3 years out of 5 years physically in Canada. My question is if someone who's a PR keeps away from Canada for the first 2 years but physically stay during the last 3 years in a given 5 year period, can this person would be able to submit application for citizenship?

My second question, Bill C-6 has not yet been approved by Senate and more likely take couple of more months to get approved. If someone is already a PR now say from January 1st, 2017 and if this person stays physically next 3 years in Canada till end of 2019, will it be possible for this person to apply for citizenship on 1st January, 2020 under the proposed new immigration (law-when approved) Bill C-6?

Hasan

 

[septimius]

To be clear C-6 cancel the intend to reside?is'nt it

Yes