*BREAKING* Conditional Permanent Residency has ended

[chilkootcee]

Cool, though I have mixed feelings about it. I can see both sides of the issue here.

But, my spouse is "released" a couple months early, not that it matters.

So...just to confirm...it also no longer applies to those who had it placed on their COPR?

Wish it never had been applied in the first place....missed out on some contract work that would have bolstered our finances for our move back to Canada....but we are blessed with what we have as many people are far worse off.

C.

 

[spousalsponsee]

Epic FAIL on your part there skippy.

The Liberals promised to: "Grant immediate PR to spouses. eliminating the two year waiting period"...do you see the dichotomy in that statement?!

Even those that HAD Condition' 51 had immediate PR when they landed as a PR. What's `immediate' about removing Condition 51 FFS ?!

What's the dichotomy in promising to remove 2 year conditional PR and removing 2 year conditional PR, skippy?

You can't just invent fake promises and scream when other people do what they said instead of what you wanted.

 

[simpsol22]

The extended statement is
"Granting immediate permanent residency to new spouses entering Canada, rather than imposing a two-year conditional status that puts spouses – often women – in a position of extreme vulnerability."

 

[simpsol22]

So...just to confirm...it also no longer applies to those who had it placed on their COPR?

Yes it's all people. The bulletin spells it out... http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2017/ob640.asp

 

[mapletree123]

Here's the problem: Who to say what's considered genuine relationship and what isn't? Just be honest, IRCC use guidelines to approve applications because it costs them too much money and time to deter marriage fraud so they just pulled out easy way--the condition 51

Too bad, Condition 51 had never been more helpful than giving the sponsor the power to rule the sponsored. Every genuine relationship will fight and there's no doubt about it. Unless it's about Disney fairy-tale, I don't buyt that every genuine relationship will always be happy. But this is reality we're living, not Disneyland. when a couple fight, they can get emotional and when they're emotional they make an irrational decision to shut up the other. This is when a genuine relationship can turn abusive in one moment and the sponsor will use the condition to say, "it's my way or highway." Condition 51 doesn't let the sponsored to have the chance to stand up and speak out what they think it's wrong in their relationship, because they're scared to talk. Believe me. The condition actually force the sponsored to eventually comes from being genuine to become silent and eventually the sponsor will take advantage of it without even knowing. And sometimes this isn't because the sponsor is abusive, but because the lack of communication that is resulted from fear of the sponsored that they will have to go home.

But someone could say, "Oh, if the relationship doesn't work, then the sponsored should've gone home." Just be realistic. Going back home isn't that easy. It's just like sending a cat back to the wild after living in your home. And sometime the sponsored got stuck in their dilemma as to whether or not to go home or to to stay with the partner and hope he/ she will change. And that will put the sponsored into a prolonged time of abusive relationship, which, again, caused by the condition51. There's a paradox, if you think about it.

Some of you might not have a problem with your relationship and dare to say that the condition51 won't bother you. But are you sure? Maybe not for the sponsor but it might for the sponsored . . . and they can be silent about it. Maybe some sponsored aren't bothered by the condition because the sponsors are kind, but some aren't. The bottomline is, back to what I say, you cannot generalize what is considered IDEAL genuine relationship, and the condition will uniquely affect every relationship

 

[Ponga]

What's the dichotomy in promising to remove 2 year conditional PR and removing 2 year conditional PR, skippy?

You can't just invent fake promises and scream when other people do what they said instead of what you wanted.

Here's what was promised by the Liberals before the election:
Grant immediate permanent residency to new spouses entering Canada, eliminating the two-year waiting period.

Here's something the former immigration minister John McCallum said in an interview in February of 2016:

"Currently, it takes far too long to reunite spouses. When a Canadian marries a non-Canadian, it takes up to two years or more sometimes to properly reunite them, and this is way too long and much longer than other countries take. One of the priorities I will have is to address this issue. Processing times are too long in many areas, but one of most serious is in the case of spouses. We’re getting rid of that two-year thing. We’ll have spouses become permanent residents immediately."

http://canadianimmigrant.ca...

He's clearly talking about the time it takes before spouses can physically reunite. But then he says "We're getting rid of that two-year thing", referring to Condition 51. Apparently he was confused about the whole process and did not realize that these were two completely separate things.




So, can you now see how that one sentence of what was promised, is really talking about two completely separate things?

1. Grant immediate permanent residency to new spouses entering Canada.

2. Eliminating the two-year waiting period.


There is no waiting period. Everyone has PR status on the day that they land as a PR of Canada. The waiting period (to have the condition removed) only applied to those that were, or would have been, subject to Conditional PR.


So my question is...when/where does the `immediate' part of this actually happen?

 

[spousalsponsee]

Here's what was promised by the Liberals before the election:
Grant immediate permanent residency to new spouses entering Canada, eliminating the two-year waiting period.

Here's something the former immigration minister John McCallum said in an interview in February of 2016:

"Currently, it takes far too long to reunite spouses. When a Canadian marries a non-Canadian, it takes up to two years or more sometimes to properly reunite them, and this is way too long and much longer than other countries take. One of the priorities I will have is to address this issue. Processing times are too long in many areas, but one of most serious is in the case of spouses. We’re getting rid of that two-year thing. We’ll have spouses become permanent residents immediately."

canadianimmigrant.ca...

He's clearly talking about the time it takes before spouses can physically reunite. But then he says "We're getting rid of that two-year thing", referring to Condition 51. Apparently he was confused about the whole process and did not realize that these were two completely separate things.




So, can you now see how that one sentence of what was promised, is really talking about two completely separate things?

1. Grant immediate permanent residency to new spouses entering Canada.

2. Eliminating the two-year waiting period.


There is no waiting period. Everyone has PR status on the day that they land as a PR of Canada. The waiting period (to have the condition removed) only applied to those that were, or would have been, subject to Conditional PR.


So my question is...when/where does the `immediate' part of this actually happen?

The immediate part happens when they promised. When a person lands as a PR. No more waiting two years for full PR. Full PR immediately instead of conditional, for two years, on the relationship ongoing.

At no point does a reasonable reading of his words mean immediate decisions/zero waiting list. He's very clear that they're removing the two year conditional PR. Yes he also talks about reducing waiting times, but nobody can reasonably pretend they thought he meant walk into an office, get a yes/no. Since there's one very reasonable interpretation (removing the two year condition) and one utterly insane interpretation (instant decisions for all couples, calling the current three month to three year period two years reduced to zero in all cases), pretending you thought the second one was happening is just silly.

 

[screech339]

I personally thought Condition 51 was a good idea, it's too bad it had to come to this. After there's a spike in complaints about spouses ditching their sponsors, they might decide to go back to it again.

There has already been a spike in false refugee claims from Mexicans since Liberals removed the visa requirement. Not surprising there.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/01/canada-mexico-immigrants-visas-asylum-tourism

So I wouldn't be surprised that there will be a spike in Marriage of Convenience after removing Conditional 51.

 

[browning911]

Epic FAIL on your part there skippy.

The Liberals promised to: "Grant immediate PR to spouses. eliminating the two year waiting period"...do you see the dichotomy in that statement?!

Even those that HAD Condition' 51 had immediate PR when they landed as a PR. What's `immediate' about removing Condition 51 FFS ?!

+5

 

[Ponga]

+5

You're kidding, right? Where's the hidden camera?!?!

Finally, someone that agrees with the `bait and switch' from the Liberals!

 

[screech339]

You're kidding, right? Where's the hidden camera?!?!

Finally, someone that agrees with the `bait and switch' from the Liberals!

I 100% agree with your issue on "bait and switch" in the liberal campaign promises. However you are now beating a dead horse.

To be honest, a lot of the liberal promises were worded to steal NDP voters, nothing more. All to prevent vote splitting between NDP and Liberals. Otherwise, their numbers would likely remain the same under previous government with Harper winning due to vote splitting.

 

[Ponga]

I 100% agree with your issue on "bait and switch" in the liberal campaign promises. However you are now beating a dead horse.

To be honest, a lot of the liberal promises were worded to steal NDP voters, nothing more. All to prevent vote splitting between NDP and Liberals. Otherwise, their numbers would likely remain the same under previous government with Harper winning due to vote splitting.

What can I say screech339...I'm stubborn like that. Nothing like a mule beating a horse, eh?! LOL!

 

[profiler]

What can I say screech339...I'm stubborn like that. Nothing like a mule beating a horse, eh?! LOL!

Sometimes they can be beat back to life!

Slippery slope that political talk... I'll try to stay clear!

 

[MontrealPQ]

Who could expect anything else from Selfie?

What bothers me the most about this is that there is no proof at all that this "epidemic of wives threatened into silence" even exist. I see no hard data at all, other than the usual special interest groups complaining.

However, it is an absolute, hard fact, that a vast proportion of marriages end in divorce, often after just a few years.

There are even men who trusted their foreign spouse with open hearts and who ended up used and abused, dumped and brought into financial ruin, who sometimes are even driven into suicide.

But of course, they don't matter to a party that wants to score brownie points with its immigrant and female voter base. Too bad if they just lost the only protection they had to deter unscrupulous fraudsters and they end up jumping off a bridge.

I do tell my wife that when she comes in my country, marriage is no longer a lifelong commitment between two spouses, but strictly an honor system, and that although we live materially comfortable lives, not all of our values are necessarily good!

 

[scrivener]

This is such great news!!!!!!