https://x.com/smeurrens/status/1841276963597525120
This is worth a listen:
https://shows.acast.com/659f464c3f69070017409684/episodes/127-maintaining-permanent-residence-and-changes-to-citizensh
The first half roughly is about the current situation with citizenship-by-descent, which I found less interesting because so far not much clarity. That said, it's funny to hear lawyers complaining that the current citizenship law is almost (borderline?) incomprehensible because of the historical oddities. They also seem to think the pending amendments might create even more problems/delays because so many people will - by the letter of the law, anyway - have claims to citizenship. As a result, what will matter will be what documentation IRCC requires. (The comment made was that the biggest group with potential claims are US citizens/residents whose ancestors migrated generations ago).
More interesting was the discussion about residency obligations and how lawyers approach. Most of the topics that come up on this forum are discussed by these lawyers (who all have practices in immigration): applying for a PR card while being out of compliance, who-accompanies-whom, etc.
What jumps out to me from listening is the amount of uncertainty the lawyers see, just like here, and the cautious approach they (generally) take. For example, if in Canada and out of compliance, usually best to just wait until back in compliance.
No big surprises otherwise (that I recall anyway, I was half-listening while doing other things); but perhaps others may find things I didn't notice.
Unfortunately that means - again, unless I missed it - no additional clarity on some topics like sponsoring while out-of-compliance.
Anyway FWIW.
This is worth a listen:
https://shows.acast.com/659f464c3f69070017409684/episodes/127-maintaining-permanent-residence-and-changes-to-citizensh
The first half roughly is about the current situation with citizenship-by-descent, which I found less interesting because so far not much clarity. That said, it's funny to hear lawyers complaining that the current citizenship law is almost (borderline?) incomprehensible because of the historical oddities. They also seem to think the pending amendments might create even more problems/delays because so many people will - by the letter of the law, anyway - have claims to citizenship. As a result, what will matter will be what documentation IRCC requires. (The comment made was that the biggest group with potential claims are US citizens/residents whose ancestors migrated generations ago).
More interesting was the discussion about residency obligations and how lawyers approach. Most of the topics that come up on this forum are discussed by these lawyers (who all have practices in immigration): applying for a PR card while being out of compliance, who-accompanies-whom, etc.
What jumps out to me from listening is the amount of uncertainty the lawyers see, just like here, and the cautious approach they (generally) take. For example, if in Canada and out of compliance, usually best to just wait until back in compliance.
No big surprises otherwise (that I recall anyway, I was half-listening while doing other things); but perhaps others may find things I didn't notice.
Unfortunately that means - again, unless I missed it - no additional clarity on some topics like sponsoring while out-of-compliance.
Anyway FWIW.
