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

[Leon]

Is it common that people move away from Canada once they get Citizenship? I dont think so.. Is CIC really worried about that? I dont think so.. I dont see the logic..

Some people do not actually want to live in Canada, they just want the Canadian passport with minimum effort. In some cases it may be in order to enjoy visa free travel because their home country passport may not be much good for that. In some cases, they are working in the middle east where they may be able to make good money but may not be able to get PR or citizenship and they want a safe country to retreat to in case they can no longer stay where they are. In some cases, they may be looking at going to the US on a NAFTA visa.

 

[gaby8]

It is somewhat common for people who feel they can get a better job else but need a Canadian passport to get the opportunity (like a TN visa to the USA). Also, apparently, a Canadian passport will enable you better opportunities to work in the UAE than not having one if you are not from a developed country - someone can be employed in the same job and just what passport they have will change how much they get paid (it's why IRCC scrutinizes Citizenship applicants who have a lot of work and travel in the UAE)

Some people do not actually want to live in Canada, they just want the Canadian passport with minimum effort. In some cases it may be in order to enjoy visa free travel because their home country passport may not be much good for that. In some cases, they are working in the middle east where they may be able to make good money but may not be able to get PR or citizenship and they want a safe country to retreat to in case they can no longer stay where they are. In some cases, they may be looking at going to the US on a NAFTA visa.

Yeah but again whats the percentage of people moving away after citizenship? Just because a few do it doesnt mean the majority will...

 

[screech339]

Yeah but again whats the percentage of people moving away after citizenship? Just because a few do it doesnt mean the majority will...

It must have been high enough to cause concern from Justice Rennie, to bring up the issue and complain about applicants "applying for citizenship on the way to airport".

 

[keesio]

Yeah but again whats the percentage of people moving away after citizenship? Just because a few do it doesnt mean the majority will...

I doubt IRCC keeps specific numbers. But it is high enough that it is on their radar. Waiting until something gets bad enough that the majority start doing it is a bad policy.

 

[Natan]

The problem with the intent to reside clause can be illustrated in the following scenario:

A citizen applicant signs the application with a genuine intent to reside in Canada after becoming a citizen. After having become a citizen, the new citizen takes an extended absence from Canada, for whatever reason -- this absence was not anticipated before becoming a citizen. Many years AFTER the citizen has returned to Canada and has been living here and paying taxes, etc., they apply for some government benefit. At that time, IRCC builds a case against them based on "fraud", because IRCC states that the citizen really did intend to leave Canada when they signed their application. This is not true, of course, but IRCC has built a very convoluted case supported by dubious data points to reach their decision to revoke this hapless resident's citizenship. Thus, a long time citizen and resident of Canada can have their citizenship put in jeopardy and, depending on the vagaries of the processes in place to adjudicate such claims, potentially lose their citizenship.

Outrageous, you say? IRCC would NEVER act injudiciously? IRCC would never build convoluted cases based on dubious assumptions? IRCC would never act without complete transparency? IRCC would never lose citizens! For those of you who believe this, please contact me offline -- I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you!

 

[screech339]

The problem with the intent to reside clause can be illustrated in the following scenario:

A citizen applicant signs the application with a genuine intent to reside in Canada after becoming a citizen. After having become a citizen, the new citizen takes an extended absence from Canada, for whatever reason -- this absence was not anticipated before becoming a citizen. Many years AFTER the citizen has returned to Canada and has been living here and paying taxes, etc., they apply for some government benefit. At that time, IRCC builds a case against them based on "fraud", because IRCC states that the citizen really did intend to leave Canada when they signed their application. This is not true, of course, but IRCC has built a very convoluted case supported by dubious data points to reach their decision to revoke this hapless resident's citizenship. Thus, a long time citizen and resident of Canada can have their citizenship put in jeopardy and, depending on the vagaries of the processes in place to adjudicate such claims, potentially lose their citizenship.

Outrageous, you say? IRCC would NEVER act injudiciously? IRCC would never build convoluted cases based on dubious assumptions? IRCC would never act without complete transparency? IRCC would never lose citizens! For those of you who believe this, please contact me offline -- I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you!

The law states that the "intend to reside" clause only applies to PR. Once you are Canadian, the law is no longer applicable to you, as you are no longer PR. No matter how many illustrations you make, the "intend to reside" clause doesn't apply to Canadians.

 

[Natan]

The law states that the "intend to reside" clause only applies to PR. Once you are Canadian, the law is no longer applicable to you, as you are no longer PR. No matter how many illustrations you make, the "intend to reside" clause doesn't apply to Canadians.

Unless IRCC makes a case that your original "intent to reside" that you signed on your citizenship application was made fraudulently. Then, quite suddenly, the "intent to reside" clause can apply to a Canadian citizen.

 

[screech339]

Unless IRCC makes a case that your original "intent to reside" that you signed on your citizenship application was made fraudulently. Then, quite suddenly, the "intent to reside" clause can apply to a Canadian citizen.

That is because you made plans to leave Canada while you were PR. For example submitted a US green card application before getting citizenship (physical evidence of PR of not "intending to reside"). Quite different. If you made plans after becoming Canadian (apply for green card after citizenship), there is nothing IRCC can do.

 

[Natan]

That is because you made plans to leave Canada while you were PR. For example submitted a US green card application before getting citizenship (physical evidence of PR of not "intending to reside"). Quite different. If you made plans after becoming Canadian (apply for green card after citizenship), there is nothing IRCC can do.

Are you suggesting that IRCC is INCAPABLE of building a case against a citizen who is innocent? That IRCC would NEVER create a convoluted set of dubious data points to support their case? That IRCC ONLY targets the guilty? If so, may I interest you in the purchase of a bridge in Brooklyn?

 

[screech339]

Are you suggesting that IRCC is INCAPABLE of building a case against a citizen who is innocent? That IRCC would NEVER create a convoluted set of dubious data points to support their case? That IRCC ONLY targets the guilty? If so, may I interest you in the purchase of a bridge in Brooklyn?

What's case do they have? What evidence do they have? Nothing unless you provided physical trail / evidence for them to prove you "intending to leave Canada" after citizenship during application process.

 

[Natan]

What's case do they have? What evidence do they have? Nothing unless you provided physical trail / evidence for them to prove you "intending to leave Canada" after citizenship during application process.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that IRCC would be unable to convolute a case with circumstantial "evidence"? Is IRCC even required to provide a physical trail of evidence to support their cases?

The scenario I outlined above may not be likely, but it is possible -- and that's the point I'm making. Imagine living in Canada as a citizen for decades, only to have this ugliness raise its head when you're trying to access a retirement or health benefit in old age. Is this really the sort of headache one wants to deal with, decades after the fact, when evidence in your favour is hard to come by? And what if they rule against you, and you are stripped of your citizenship and deported from Canada -- it's possible, whether likely or not.

You seem to suggest that my scenario is 100% impossible. If that's the case, then we are in disagreement. I believe that such a case is not only possible, but will eventually occur if the "intent to reside" clause is not "removed as if it were never there". The prosecution of fraudulent citizenship applications has no statue of limitations.

 

[MarceauBletard]

For the record, I completely agree with our Albanian friend, screech339.
I think he is absolutely correct.
The "intend to reside" is only valid while being PR during the Citizenship application process.
After that, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian regarding the residence.

 

[screech339]

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that IRCC would be unable to convolute a case with circumstantial "evidence"? Is IRCC even required to provide a physical trail of evidence to support their cases?

The scenario I outlined above may not be likely, but it is possible -- and that's the point I'm making. Imagine living in Canada as a citizen for decades, only to have this ugliness raise its head when you're trying to access a retirement or health benefit in old age. Is this really the sort of headache one wants to deal with, decades after the fact, when evidence in your favour is hard to come by? And what if they rule against you, and you are stripped of your citizenship and deported from Canada -- it's possible, whether likely or not.

You seem to suggest that my scenario is 100% impossible. If that's the case, then we are in disagreement. I believe that such a case is not only possible, but will eventually occur if the "intent to reside" clause is not "removed as if it were never there". Fraudulent citizenship applications have no statue of limitations.

I didnt say it is not 100% impossible. But it is very very difficult to get a conviction based on weak "circumstantial" evidence. IRCC is not going to waste their time building a case on "circumstantial" evidence which will not end with 100% conviction.

Besides if you want to live in fear of IRCC and stay in Canada for rest of your life, despite leaving no evidence of you planning to leave Canada as PR after citizenship, by all means, go ahead. Live a paranoid life. No one is stopping you.

 

[Natan]

I didnt say it is not 100% impossible. But it is very very difficult to get a conviction based on weak "circumstantial" evidence.

Besides if you want to live in fear of IRCC and stay in Canada for rest of your life, despite leaving no evidence of you planning to leave Canada as PR after citizenship, by all means, go ahead. Live a paranoid life. No one is stopping you.

The interesting thing about citizenship cases is that you don't necessarily need a "conviction" to lose one's citizenship, to which many lost Canadians can attest. IRCC can make a decision to strip someone of their citizenship based on a fraudulent application, in a purely administrative procedure (requiring a preponderance of evidence) -- without bringing criminal charges (requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt). It may be up to the citizen to fight this action, failing to do so resulting in a loss of citizenship. What if the citizen does not have the money to fight? What if the citizen cannot find a competent attorney, or finds a very incompetent one? What if the citizen is no longer mentally capable of handling their affairs? There are a lot of "what ifs" through which IRCC's administrative revocation of citizenship could slip through.

Another point. Even if one never, ever leaves Canada after becoming a citizen, that is no guarantee that the "intent to reside" clause will not be used against you. Just because you didn't leave, that is not proof that when you signed your application you actually had an "intent to reside". If IRCC can establish that you made that promise fraudulently, even though you never left, that is still grounds for revocation of citizenship.

The point of my entry into this conversation is to point out that those who fear the "intent to reside" clause have reason to fear. That fear is not unreasonable. (And they should not be brought to task for voicing their fears in its regard!) It is one more reason IRCC can use to revoke citizenship.

 

[screech339]

The interesting thing about citizenship cases is that you don't necessarily need a "conviction" to lose one's citizenship, to which many lost Canadians can attest. IRCC can make a decision to strip someone of their citizenship based on a fraudulent application, in a purely administrative procedure (requiring a preponderance of evidence) -- without bringing criminal charges (requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt). It may be up to the citizen to fight this action, failing to do so resulting in a loss of citizenship. What if the citizen does not have the money to fight? What if the citizen cannot find a competent attorney, or finds a very incompetent one? What if the citizen is no longer mentally capable of handling their affairs? There are a lot of "what ifs" through which IRCC's administrative revocation of citizenship could slip through.

Another point. Even if one never, ever leaves Canada after becoming a citizen, that is no guarantee that the "intent to reside" clause will not be used against you. Just because you didn't leave, that is not proof that when you signed your application you actually had an "intent to reside". If IRCC can establish that you made that promise fraudulently, even though you never left, that is still grounds for revocation of citizenship.

The point of my entry into this conversation is to point out that those who fear the "intent to reside" clause have reason to fear. That fear is not unreasonable. (And they should not be brought to task for voicing their fears in its regard!) It is one more reason IRCC can use to revoke citizenship.

As I said before, enjoy your paranoid life.

I remember a famous line.

"You have nothing to fear but fear itself".

Here is another good line.

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