BREAKING NEWS Bill C-6 finally passed in HoC, Now reading in Senate

[links18]

You are qualified or have a right to apply for citizenship when you meet the requirements for citizenship under the law. There's a big difference.

Not really. If you meet the requirements, you get citizenship. Its not discretionary. Now, they can argue all day about whether you actually meet the requirements, but if you do you have a right to become a citizen. Its not at anyone's discretion.

 

[links18]

Its got nothing to do with the Minister's case. As long as there are 21 vacant seats in the senate, it was always going to be a rough ride. This same senate passed c-24 in 2 days. The minister's case just adds to the lack of purpose on the actions by this government. Then again, appointing the rest of the senators is a no brainer but hey, "I have no idea what they are thinking at the Liberal high command". Maybe another decade without power will teach them. JT did everything he could by promising immigrants in order to get back the immigrant vote that things would be different but now that they have had 1 year, they say the same things that the conservatives say, but instead of saying it with a frown, they say it with a smile.

Honeymoon over, huh?

 

[Natan]

Not really. If you meet the requirements, you get citizenship. Its not discretionary. Now, they can argue all day about whether you actually meet the requirements, but if you do you have a right to become a citizen. Its not at anyone's discretion.

Naturalized citizenship is within Government's "gift". Naturalized persons are "granted" citizenship at the "discretion" of Government -- it is not a right.

If one's citizenship application is denied, one may seek redress in the courts only if IRCC "grants" one leave to sue, which is, again, at Government's "discretion".

Thus, both the "grant" of citizenship and leave to appeal citizenship decisions are at the "discretion" of government. There are no "rights", actual or theoretical, adhering to the applicant in this regard.

 

[h3a3j6]

Going in a segue here, where is C-6 on Parlvu's website? I can't seem to find it anywhere, neither on the Bills on Today's Agenda or the Bills Before Committee...

 

[screech339]

Not really. If you meet the requirements, you get citizenship. Its not discretionary. Now, they can argue all day about whether you actually meet the requirements, but if you do you have a right to become a citizen. Its not at anyone's discretion.

Are you saying you automatically become citizen after stay 4 years without submitting application? Are you saying a 1st degree convicted murderer automatically get citizenship after 4 year in canada? You seems to think you automatically get it once you meets the requirement. You obviously know that isn't true. You do however have the right to submit your citizenship application. IRCC do have the right to decide whether you met the requirement or not.

 

[subha_1962]

Going in a segue here, where is C-6 on Parlvu's website? I can't seem to find it anywhere, neither on the Bills on Today's Agenda or the Bills Before Committee...

It's in the agenda for Oct 18th

 

[noba el king]

It's in the agenda for Oct 18th

And will be skipped again and again and so on

 

[MarceauBletard]

You're reading from The Sun, hired by the Conservatives.
This is more serious to read:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/revoke-citizenship-misrepresent-birth-1.3797283

Haha, nice joke!
CBC is fully biased by the Liberals...
In the Monsef case, they BARELY mention it...
They never reveal information that is not politically correct or could hurt the Liberal party...
At least The Sun gives a different point of view than all the rest of the politically correct media...

 

[keesio]

Haha, nice joke!
CBC is fully biased by the Liberals...
In the Monsef case, they BARELY mention it...
They never reveal information that is not politically correct or could hurt the Liberal party...
At least The Sun gives a different point of view than all the rest of the politically correct media...

Here you go, straight from CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-revocation-trudeau-harper-1.3795733

 

[MarceauBletard]

Here you go, straight from CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/citizenship-revocation-trudeau-harper-1.3795733

Excellent article! I'm genuinely positively surprised by the CBC!

 

[links18]

Naturalized citizenship is within Government's "gift". Naturalized persons are "granted" citizenship at the "discretion" of Government -- it is not a right.

If one's citizenship application is denied, one may seek redress in the courts only if IRCC "grants" one leave to sue, which is, again, at Government's "discretion".

Thus, both the "grant" of citizenship and leave to appeal citizenship decisions are at the "discretion" of government. There are no "rights", actual or theoretical, adhering to the applicant in this regard.

It is within Parliament's discretion to determine the conditions under which a grant of citizenship is given, but once those conditions have been promulgated by law, IRCC cant say no to people who meet the conditions. You can use whatever language you want, but once you meet the requirements you have a legal entitlement to become a Canadian citizen.

 

[screech339]

It is within Parliament's discretion to determine the conditions under which a grant of citizenship is given, but once those conditions have been promulgated by law, IRCC cant say no to people who meet the conditions. You can use whatever language you want, but once you meet the requirements you have a legal entitlement to become a Canadian citizen.

What if you committed a federal crime, such as DUI after you submitted your application. Does this mean you are still entitled to citizenship. The answer is NO. Just because you submitted an application doesn't automatically mean you will get citizenship. Again doesn't entitled you to citizenship. IRCC still have the right to decide to grant you citizenship or not. However you want to argue, IRCC has the final say. As long as IRCC has final say, you are not entitled to citizenship until then.

Let me ask you this. Would you write a note with your citizenship application that you demand that IRCC should give you citizenship because you met all the qualifications and thus entitled to citizenship, regardless?

 

[links18]

What if you committed a federal crime, such as DUI after you submitted your application. Does this mean you are still entitled to citizenship. The answer is NO. Just because you submitted an application doesn't automatically mean you will get citizenship. Again doesn't entitled you to citizenship. IRCC still have the right to decide to grant you citizenship or not. However you want to argue, IRCC has the final say. As long as IRCC has final say, you are not entitled to citizenship until then.

Let me ask you this. Would you write a note with your citizenship application that you demand that IRCC should give you citizenship because you met all the qualifications and thus entitled to citizenship, regardless?

Surprise more red herring arguments from Screech. Go look at the Citizenship Act. It clearly states that the Minister shall grant citizenship, it doesn't say may. Now, it is up to the applicant to prove they meet the legally promulgated requirements and certainly IRCC can disagree with the applicant's assertions, but it is not likely they can say, "Well, you meet the requirements but we aren't giving you citizenship, because we don't like that last Facebook post you made."

And yes, if IRCC was unfairly obstructing my application after I clearly proved my qualifications, I would absolutely send a letter reminding them of their legal duty to grant me citizenship.

 

[Natan]

It is within Parliament's discretion to determine the conditions under which a grant of citizenship is given, but once those conditions have been promulgated by law, IRCC cant say no to people who meet the conditions. You can use whatever language you want, but once you meet the requirements you have a legal entitlement to become a Canadian citizen.

These are two different issues, that seem like they are the same, but they are not:

1. A [naturalizing] citizenship applicant has no right to citizenship, whether they meet the citizenship requirements or not. Citizenship is a grant within Government's gift.

2. The minister may be compelled by the law to grant citizenship to applicants who meet the requirements of citizenship.

That the Minister may be compelled to act does not change citizenship from a gift granted by Government to a right of the applicant.

 

[screech339]

Surprise more red herring arguments from Screech. Go look at the Citizenship Act. It clearly states that the Minister shall grant citizenship, it doesn't say may. Now, it is up to the applicant to prove they meet the legally promulgated requirements and certainly IRCC can disagree with the applicant's assertions, but it is not likely they can say, "Well, you meet the requirements but we aren't giving you citizenship, because we don't like that last Facebook post you made."

And yes, if IRCC was unfairly obstructing my application after I clearly proved my qualifications, I would absolutely send a letter reminding them of their legal duty to grant me citizenship.

I see that you avoided my question by writing a letter to IRCC demanding for citizenship after your application is late or pass processing time. So by your own admission that you won't submit a note demanding that IRCC give you citizenship because you are entitled to it with your application. In other words, you are NOT entitled to or have a right to citizenship.

Sure you can demand that they consider your application for your citizenship after waiting for months beyond the average processing time. There is a big difference in demanding your citizenship up front and demanding them to review your application after expected processing time.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your facts.