Second class citizenship:
The criticism that Bill C-24 provisions create second class citizenship was
NOT about the so-called
intent-to-reside requirement. This had to do with the implementation of provisions which would allow the Minister to revoke the citizenship of
some citizens based on certain criminal convictions, but
not other citizens even though they committed the same crimes: hence, two different classes of citizen, those who could lose citizenship and those who could not, even though both engaged in the same criminal acts.
Bill C-6 still proposes to repeal these provisions. Last I looked, there was still some rumbling and grumbling about this, suggestions that the Senate may amend the Bill, but so far it appears that Bill C-6 is likely to pass and be adopted (sooner or later) with the provisions for repealing this intact.
So-called intent-to-reside requirement:
The so-called
intent-to-reside requirement is prescribed in subsection 5(1)(c.1). of the
Citizenship Act. This is specifically applicable to
Permanent Residents, not citizens, and in particular prescribes the
requisite intent a PR must have to be eligible for citizenship.
Nothing in Section 5(1) applies to anyone who is a citizen, whether a citizen by descent or a naturalized citizen.
The hyperbolic and misleading characterizations to the contrary, by a very few lawyers back in 2014, was no more than a
red herring, unfortunately so since that nonsense garnered a lot of attention and was a distraction from many of the real serious problems with Bill C-24, only some of which will be fixed by Bill C-6 (assuming it is adopted).
Bill C-6 will also remove this
eligibility-for-grant-citizenship requirement.
sistemc said:
On the Application for the Canadian citienship there is the following question:
INTENTION
I intend, if granted citizenship,
• to continue to reside in Canada;
And you must answer yes. I am not the lawyer, but my engineering mindset tells me that the government expects me to become a second class citizen when granted the citizenship.
AmirATM said:
The confusion might be in your head. Ok! So when a new immigrant has to tick a box when he applies for citizenship that he has the intent to reside in Canada and there is a chance under the current law that if he leaves right after he gets his passport he might have his citizenship revoked , how? With a letter sent by mail. As simple as it sounds. A born Canadian can leave the country and never come back and he will not be subjected to any citizenship revocation. This doesn’t look to you like creating second class citizens?
I fully agree that there are serious problems with the procedure for revoking the citizenship of those accused of fraud in obtaining their citizenship. Unfortunately Bill C-6 does not address the shortcomings in process due to changes made by Bill C-24.
Let us be clear however: there is no basis for revoking anyone's citizenship based on the person leaving Canada,
no matter how soon after taking the oath the citizen leaves. Any assertions to the contrary are misinformation.
The claim that leaving Canada can be used as evidence of fraud to revoke a new citizen's citizenship is grossly exaggerated, and there is nothing in Canadian jurisprudence which indicates even a remote possibility that would allow the government to revoke citizenship based on misrepresentation in the absence of concrete evidence of actual fraud.
So sure, for those who applied subject to the
intent-to-reside requirement, if the new citizen sold his house, accepted a job abroad, and bought the airline ticket to leave before taking the oath, then after the oath left Canada to live and work abroad,
DUH!, no paranormal powers of intuition necessary to figure out what was going on there:
FRAUD! That said, it warrants observing, the prospect of this individual having his citizenship revoked is remote,
very remote.
If, in contrast, this individual sold his house and established a residence abroad
before taking the oath, returned to Canada long enough to take the oath, and had failed in the meantime (before the oath) to notify IRCC of his change in address, then the risk of revocation will increase. Probably still a rather small risk, but some risk.
In any event, with only fantastical (not based in reality) exceptions, the scenario posed by
AmirATM is really about applicants who engage in
FRAUD. They are not second-class citizens. They are not really citizens at all since they engaged in FRAUD in order to illegally obtain a grant of citizenship.
They will find little or no sympathy among the vast majority of Canadians, no ethnic or nationality bias at play.
Again, I agree that the procedures for prosecuting cases of fraud, as adopted by Bill C-24, are problematic and fail to adequately protect the right of Canadians (remembering that PRs are Canadians too) to fair procedure. There is potential for injustice due to the flaws in procedure. But this applies
equally to any and all naturalized citizens, including those who became citizens before the
intent-to-reside requirement was implemented, and really has nothing to do with the
intent-to-reside requirement at all.
And, unfortunately, Bill C-6 does
NOT address this serious flaw in the current
Citizenship Act, and so far as I have seen, there is little or no movement toward tabling legislation to address this.
Remember, even the citizen who stays in Canada can have his citizenship revoked if he engaged in fraud during the process of becoming a PR or the process of becoming a citizen.
Otherwise, make no mistake: misrepresentations made in the process of acquiring citizenship constitute fraud. Any citizenship thus obtained is forever subject to revocation. This was true before Bill C-24 was adopted. This is true for most (if not all) other countries.
sistemc said:
. . . I am not the lawyer . . .
AmirATM said:
. . . I am not a lawyer but . . .
Not being a lawyer does not give one a license to mis-state or ignore what the law actually is.
Again, Section 5(1) in the
Citizenship Act only applies to Permanent Residents. It straight-forwardly prescribes the requirements which
PRs must meet to be
eligible for a grant of citizenship. Subsection 5(1)(c.1) in particular only refers to and specifies the intent a
Permanent Resident must have to be eligible for grant citizenship.
Any assertion or characterization of this provision suggesting it has any effect on any citizen is unfounded, not true.
In the meantime, while there have been some hints that a few Senators may also have concerns about removing this requirement, it nonetheless still appears that Bill C-6 will eventually be adopted with the provisions to not only remove this requirement, but to make it as if there never was any such requirement.
Note in passing: The
intent-to-reside requirement was largely intended to give CIC (under the Harper government) the authority to summarily deny citizenship to applicants discerned to be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport. However, concerns about abuse of the Canadian immigration system by some individuals perceived to be
passport-shopping or otherwise seeking
citizenship-of-convenience were around long before Harper became PM. Criteria for issuing RQ adopted by the previous Liberal government, for example, targeted applicants identified as returning from abroad to attend the test or interview.
This is bound to still be a concern, still a reason for increased scrutiny, still raising the bar for some applicants, for those perceived to be abusing the Canadian immigration system. Eliminating the intent requirement, as provided by Bill C-6, does not mean IRCC will not discriminate against those applicants perceived to be abusing the system. (Such discrimination is acceptable so long as IRCC properly applies the law in making final decisions . . . like discriminating against convicted criminals is OK.)
In this regard, notwithstanding how one feels about it, generally there will be little or no sympathy among Canadians for any immigrant who exploits the system without intending to live permanently in Canada. Whether Bill C-6 gets adopted or not. Whether if adopted it still removes the intent requirement or not. Applicants perceived to be
applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport will likely face more difficulties than most, and very few in Canada will have much if any sympathy for them. Just the way it is.
