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

[747-captain]

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.

EXTREMELY WELL STATED links18!!! You literally took the words out of my mouth! I don't have time to do a whole write-up right now, but later today I will do a thorough "opinion piece" on this and related subjects that I have very very strong opinions about: especially the super easy way that citizenship can be revoked in Canada, without any due process of the law (making Citizenship almost meaningless).

And I would like to compare and contrast this with the United States, which has laws that are a million times more robust. One thing to keep in mind: It is "almost impossible" to revoke someone's citizenship in the US, once it is granted. Yes, it can be done, but the burden of proof in misrepresentation and fraud cases rests with the government, not the citizen: In other words it's not GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, but INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. And that's the way it should be in any modern 1st world democracy. We don't live in the era of the Salem Witch Trials, where someone simply accuses you of being guilty of something and you are! :

And one more thing: The US has a 2-year statute of limitations to initiate revocation proceedings for naturalized citizens. The USCIS has 2 years to revoke one's citizenship based on fraud and misrepresentation. Even during this period, the citizen does not lose any of their rights to go through MULTIPLE LAYERS of appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Technically they can still attempt to revoke after the 2 year period, but they cannot start the revocation proceedings by themselves. They have to convene a grand jury who has to indict the citizen. Only then can it proceed any further. If I'm not mistaken, this has never happened in US history, because of how insanely impossible this would be without ridiculously compelling evidence needed to convince the jury.

 

[deerestlovelybear]

EXTREMELY WELL STATED links18!!! You literally took the words out of my mouth! I don't have time to do a whole write-up right now, but later today I will do a thorough "opinion piece" on this and related subjects that I have very very strong opinions about: especially the super easy way that citizenship can be revoked in Canada, without any due process of the law (making Citizenship almost meaningless).

And I would like to compare and contrast this with the United States, which has laws that are a million times more robust. One thing to keep in mind: It is "almost impossible" to revoke someone's citizenship in the US, once it is granted. Yes, it can be done, but the burden of proof in misrepresentation and fraud cases rests with the government, not the citizen: In other words it's not GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, but INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. And that's the way it should be in any modern 1st world democracy. We don't live in the era of the Salem Witch Trials, where someone simply accuses you of being guilty of something and you are! :

And one more thing: The US has a 2-year statute of limitations to initiate revocation proceedings for naturalized citizens. The USCIS has 2 years to revoke one's citizenship based on fraud and misrepresentation. Even during this period, the citizen does not lose any of their rights to go through MULTIPLE LAYERS of appeals, all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Technically they can still attempt to revoke after the 2 year period, but they cannot start the revocation proceedings by themselves. They have to convene a grand jury who has to indict the citizen. Only then can it proceed any further. If I'm not mistaken, this has never happened in US history, because of how insanely impossible this would be without ridiculously compelling evidence needed to convince the jury.

Don't compare Canada with USA, it is 1000000 times easier to get PR status in Canada compared to USA, so USA citizenship is much more valuable and has been vetted carefully from PR state. In Canada one can get PR easily but when it come to citizenship then they start to vet, it is too late then because PR has same right as citizens except voting only.

 

[Rigly68]

You didn't run the calculator properly. You just calculated the days of physical presence. Scroll down where it says "Select 'Continue' if you would like to know when you will meet both the 1460 days requirement and the 183 days requirement, taking into account time spent serving a sentence and absences" and see for yourself. Whoever lands in December (even in August) loses all the days for that year for the purposes of citizenship according to the current law.

Yes they loose the days for that year. but again ;lets say they land in December 2012 then they have all of 2013, 2014, 2015 and almost all of 2016. So you have your 4 years of each year with 183 days: 2013, 2014, 2015 and Jan-Dec ? 2016. This is without any time spent outside of Canada.
Used the calculator correctly with those dates and it stated exactly that:
According to the information you provided, you meet the requirements to be physically present in Canada as a permanent resident for at least:
•1460 days in the six years immediately before the date of your application, and
•183 days in each of four calendar years that are fully or partially in the six years immediately before the date of your application.

 

[zzzzzzzz]

This thread has turned into a s**t-show in the past few days. I'm sure all (or most) of us have a common goal to monitor the progress of Bill C-6. When it comes to citizenship eligibility, the current online presence calculator reigns supreme (as long as you've filled it accurately). Criticism of the Liberals and the Senate isn't going to help anyone here (I mean that criticism is fine, but this forum doesn't really need to see it). I've been following this thread since it was created, and the discussions have been largely constructive.

I really want the bill to pass soon, but it looks like I've been naive about thinking how straight-forward it was gonna be. Also, the estimated 250,000 people who've been deemed ineligible to apply due to C24 (including me) constitute about 0.7% of the country's population, while other points of the bill really affect a further 3-5% of the population, so while we're so passionate about seeing this pass, our pressure is sadly not going to help expedite things much (Again, I'm not implying that we should stop doing that).

In terms of affecting the population, the marijuana bill would probably be voted as more important than C-6 lol

Cheers, and hope you're all having a good turkey day ;D

 

[ecstrom]

what is the C-6 status now? :-X could it be launched in this year?

I am suppose to submit the citizenship application in this year, I landed in Feb 2014, but I cant apply it now.... :'( :'( :'(

 

[foodie69]

what is the C-6 status now? :-X could it be launched in this year?

I am suppose to submit the citizenship application in this year, I landed in Feb 2014, but I cant apply it now.... :'( :'( :'(

At the moment you have to wait until at least Feb 2018..

 

[marcher]

This thread has turned into a s**t-show in the past few days. I'm sure all (or most) of us have a common goal to monitor the progress of Bill C-6. When it comes to citizenship eligibility, the current online presence calculator reigns supreme (as long as you've filled it accurately). Criticism of the Liberals and the Senate isn't going to help anyone here (I mean that criticism is fine, but this forum doesn't really need to see it). I've been following this thread since it was created, and the discussions have been largely constructive.

I really want the bill to pass soon, but it looks like I've been naive about thinking how straight-forward it was gonna be. Also, the estimated 250,000 people who've been deemed ineligible to apply due to C24 (including me) constitute about 0.7% of the country's population, while other points of the bill really affect a further 3-5% of the population, so while we're so passionate about seeing this pass, our pressure is sadly not going to help expedite things much (Again, I'm not implying that we should stop doing that).

In terms of affecting the population, the marijuana bill would probably be voted as more important than C-6 lol

Cheers, and hope you're all having a good turkey day ;D

We all underestimated the time it will take C-6 because of the comments on this forum. People kept setting incredibly high expectations and stating them as if they are facts based on valid evidence. I had to do a little research myself to find out that Bill C-6 will not be implemented anytime soon due to various factors such as requirement for amendments before the Senate would consider it, and the fact it is one of the least important bills in the Libs hands at the moment. I will be optimistic yet realistic and say 2018 is the target date. We need to remember that even after it is rubber stamped; implementing it, especially the 3-5 Rule, will require a lot of planning and probably increase in capacity. Otherwise we will end up with a historic backlog that will make us all wish 4-6 never changed.

 

[screech339]

Yes they loose the days for that year. but again ;lets say they land in December 2012 then they have all of 2013, 2014, 2015 and almost all of 2016. So you have your 4 years of each year with 183 days: 2013, 2014, 2015 and Jan-Dec ? 2016. This is without any time spent outside of Canada.
Used the calculator correctly with those dates and it stated exactly that:
According to the information you provided, you meet the requirements to be physically present in Canada as a permanent resident for at least:
•1460 days in the six years immediately before the date of your application, and
•183 days in each of four calendar years that are fully or partially in the six years immediately before the date of your application.

You didn't run the calculator properly. You just calculated the days of physical presence. Scroll down where it says "Select 'Continue' if you would like to know when you will meet both the 1460 days requirement and the 183 days requirement, taking into account time spent serving a sentence and absences" and see for yourself. Whoever lands in December (even in August) loses all the days for that year for the purposes of citizenship according to the current law.

DirectEnergy:

As demonstrated by Rigly68, I stand corrected. It is you who need to redo the calculator properly. Are you saying the online calculator was incorrect since 4/6 rule went into effect?

 

[keesio]

We all underestimated the time it will take C-6 because of the comments on this forum. People kept setting incredibly high expectations and stating them as if they are facts based on valid evidence. I had to do a little research myself to find out that Bill C-6 will not be implemented anytime soon due to various factors such as requirement for amendments before the Senate would consider it, and the fact it is one of the least important bills in the Libs hands at the moment. I will be optimistic yet realistic and say 2018 is the target date. We need to remember that even after it is rubber stamped; implementing it, especially the 3-5 Rule, will require a lot of planning and probably increase in capacity. Otherwise we will end up with a historic backlog that will make us all wish 4-6 never changed.

Many of the members here who have been on this forum for awhile have predicted that it won't be as easy as people said. Not to toot my own horn, but I did say:
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/breaking-news-bill-c6-finally-passed-in-hoc-now-reading-in-senate-t430607.0.html;msg5424210#msg5424210

And once it is passed and receives royal assent, IRCC has to implement it. And this will take time also:
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/breaking-news-bill-c6-finally-passed-in-hoc-now-reading-in-senate-t430607.0.html;msg5398975#msg5398975

I'm *still* optimistic that everything will be implemented by end of 2017. But that optimism is slipping...

 

[AmirATM]

I am good if they implement it in Feb 2018 because only then i will be illegible to apply. landed late 2012 but came to live in Canada for good in February 2015 . so february 2018 will be a perfect timing .. again i don't mind one more year but its always good to get papers sorted a year before.

I am optimistic

 

[marcher]

I am good if they implement it in Feb 2018 because only then i will be illegible to apply. landed late 2012 but came to live in Canada for good in February 2015 . so february 2018 will be a perfect timing .. again i don't mind one more year but its always good to get papers sorted a year before.

I am optimistic

February 2018 is a reasonable timing, although I personally think they might eventually amend the 3-5 rule proposal, and continue with 4-6 or change it to 4-5 instead. The priority as far as C-6 is concerned now is to make sure it helps Minister Monsef maintain her citizenship. I hope we all remember these facts when we finally qualify to vote!

 

[screech339]

February 2018 is a reasonable timing, although I personally think they might eventually amend the 3-5 rule proposal, and continue with 4-6 or change it to 4-5 instead. The priority as far as C-6 is concerned now is to make sure it helps Minister Monsef maintain her citizenship. I hope we all remember these facts when we finally qualify to vote!

The Liberals were caught in hypocrisy and like to bury this issue as quick as possible. They don't want to strip Monsef of citizenship due to misrepresentation which has increased under their mandate and yet maintain stripping of citizenship from dual citizens that got caught with misrepresentation. The ministry of citizenship do have the right to allow special cases under which an applicant would get to keep citizenship. So McCallum would likely allow Monsef to keep her citizenship as it falls under "special" circumstances.

 

[marcher]

The Liberals were caught in hypocrisy and like to bury this issue as quick as possible. They don't want to strip Monsef of citizenship due to misrepresentation which has increased under their mandate and yet maintain stripping of citizenship from dual citizens that got caught with misrepresentation. The ministry of citizenship do have the right to allow special cases under which an applicant would get to keep citizenship. So McCallum would likely allow Monsef to keep her citizenship as it falls under "special" circumstances.

I read on CBC today that the number of citizenships revoked under Trudeau is more than the total number of cases revoked prior to his election. Seems Libs are implementing the Cons law more than the Cons themselves. Having said that, the cases they are revoking are those of people who lied to get a citizenship, especially about how long they lived in Canada. However, many cases are of those who did not personally lie, mostly their parent did since they were still newborns or children. Interesting how the same level of scrutiny and rigour will not be applied to Minister Monsef's case. A politician is a politician is a politician ...

 

[sylvia27]

is there any reading today?

 

[subha_1962]

is there any reading today?

Senate is not meeting this week. Next meeting date is October 18th