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

[Natan]

As I said before, enjoy your paranoid life.

I remember a famous line.

"You have nothing to fear but fear itself".

Ridiculing those who are reasonably concerned about how government regulations can potentially impact them is... unfortunate.

 

[screech339]

Ridiculing those who are reasonably concerned about how government regulations can potentially impact them is... unfortunate

And it is unfortunate that you are spreading fear when there isn't any.

 

[Natan]

And it is unfortunate that you are spreading fear when there isn't any.

I suppose the following is just a figment of my imagination:

Hello,

I read this thread. Very interesting. Looking for your advise on following as I am completing 4 yrs residency requirements by Oct 15/2016.

- Should I wait until C-6 get passed and implemented before I apply ?
- I know processing could be quicker if I apply now.

I do not want to apply NOW because-

- In this case, I need to sign 'intend to stay in Canada'. I have no plan to perm move from Canada but incase we need to go for few months in the future. if we sign intend to stay - will still applicable in case rule changes (C-6).
- I need to collect proof for language (CLP or others) if I apply now.

Thanks,
Kapil

I am not the only person around here who has voiced concerns over the "intent to reside" clause -- it has been a concern oft repeated, and oft ridiculed.

 

[foodie69]

Five hundred years ago, Michel de Montaigne said: “My life has been filled with terrible misfortune; most of which never happened.”

Now there’s a study that proves it. This study looked into how many of our imagined calamities never materialize. In this study, subjects were asked to write down their worries over an extended period of time and then identify which of their imagined misfortunes did not actually happen.

Lo and behold, it turns out that 85 percent of what subjects worried about never happened, and with the 15 percent that did happen, 79 percent of subjects discovered either they could handle the difficulty better than expected, or the difficulty taught them a lesson worth learning. This means that 97 percent of what you worry over is not much more than a fearful mind punishing you with exaggerations and misperceptions.

Huffington Post

Don't sweat the small things, live life now. ;D

 

[MarceauBletard]

With all due respect Nathan, I also think you're being paranoid.
Even if what you say is technically possible, it's not what the government has intended for that clause.
While it is technically possible, I don't see why they would bother people in such a way, they have other fishes to fry.

Other people have asked more information about the "intend to reside", but you're only one to be concerned in such a way.

 

[links18]

Don't sweat the small things, live life now. ;D

Often heard right before an extreme sports accident. 8)

 

[Natan]

Five hundred years ago, Michel de Montaigne said: “My life has been filled with terrible misfortune; most of which never happened.”

Now there’s a study that proves it. This study looked into how many of our imagined calamities never materialize. In this study, subjects were asked to write down their worries over an extended period of time and then identify which of their imagined misfortunes did not actually happen.

Lo and behold, it turns out that 85 percent of what subjects worried about never happened, and with the 15 percent that did happen, 79 percent of subjects discovered either they could handle the difficulty better than expected, or the difficulty taught them a lesson worth learning. This means that 97 percent of what you worry over is not much more than a fearful mind punishing you with exaggerations and misperceptions.

Huffington Post

Don't sweat the small things, live life now. ;D

I would not consider loss of citizenship and deportation a "small thing".

Fear: country of birth will revoke my citizenship and/or deport me.
Outcome: my country of birth has threatened to revoke my citizenship and deport me four times.
Lesson learnt: fear the power of governments to wreak havoc on my life.

Fear: my spouse's country of birth will revoke citizenship.
Outcome: my spouse's citizenship was revoked resulting in statelessness.
Lesson learnt: fear the power of governments to strip one of their civil rights.

Fear: the country of my birth will deport my law abiding spouse who has been resident for decades.
Outcome: my spouse was deported.
Lesson learnt: fear the power of governments to act heartlessly.

Fear: I would be unable to sponsor my spouse to live with me in my country of citizenship.
Outcome: my country of citizenship refused to provide residence status to my spouse or a travel document for my stateless spouse to board a plane to that country.
Lesson learnt: fear the power of governments to capriciously ignore their own laws.

Fear: Canada would refuse permanent residence status to my spouse when we arrived in Canada.
Outcome: Canada granted temporary residence status to my spouse that lasted for five years.
Lesson learnt: fear the power of governments to break the promises they have made with impunity.

I have been forced to move hither and yon, like a vagabond, from country to country. Lost are all the legal expenses, the costs of all that moving, and all the potential earnings I would certainly had been able to retain had none of this befallen us.

For some of us, the immigration road has been one of much travail. Instead of ridiculing the reasonable fears immigrants have regarding real, actual government legislation and trying to minimize their anxieties with empty political platitudes and feel-good faux news articles; those anxieties should be respected and responded to with compassion and understanding.

Considering my personal history, it is completely reasonable, if not completely expected, that I should have legitimate concerns about recent legislation that further empowers a government to take away my citizenship. I am certain that there are many other immigrants to Canada who have survived far, far, far worse than what I have endured. Do not belittle their concerns.

 

[keesio]

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.

The government can get away with all sorts of crap. If they really want to "get" you, they can find a way - whether with this rule or another one. Or they can make up a new rule and apply it retroactively (like what Burma did to screw over Aung San Suu Kyi). You can worry about anything. A lot of anti-government people spend their whole life worrying about the government coming to get them.

As you said, the scenario you outlined is not likely. But it can happen. A lot of things can happen. There are a host of other bigger issues that have wider impact than this rule that I am more concerned about.

 

[links18]

I would not consider loss of citizenship and deportation a "small thing".

Fear: country of birth will revoke my citizenship and/or deport me.
Outcome: my country of birth has threatened to revoke my citizenship and deport me four times.
Lesson learnt: fear the power of governments to wreak havoc on my life.

Fear: my spouse's country of birth will revoke citizenship.
Outcome: my spouse's citizenship was revoked resulting in statelessness.
Lesson learnt: fear the power of governments to strip one of their civil rights.

Fear: the country of my birth will deport my law abiding spouse who has been resident for decades.
Outcome: my spouse was deported.
Lesson learnt: fear the power of governments to act heartlessly.

Fear: I would be unable to sponsor my spouse to live with me in my country of citizenship.
Outcome: my country of citizenship refused to provide residence status to my spouse or a travel document for my stateless spouse to board a plane to that country.
Lesson learnt: fear the power of governments to capriciously ignore their own laws.

Fear: Canada would refuse permanent residence status to my spouse when we arrived in Canada.
Outcome: Canada granted temporary residence status to my spouse that lasted for five years.
Lesson learnt: fear the power of governments to break the promises they have made with impunity.

I have been forced to move hither and yon, like a vagabond, from country to country. Lost are all the legal expenses, the costs of all that moving, and all the potential earnings I would certainly had been able to retain had none of this befallen us.

For some of us, the immigration road has been one of much travail. Instead of ridiculing the reasonable fears immigrants have regarding real, actual government legislation and trying to minimize their anxieties with empty political platitudes and feel-good faux news articles; those anxieties should be respected and responded to with compassion and understanding.

Considering my personal history, it is completely reasonable, if not completely expected, that I should have legitimate concerns about recent legislation that further empowers a government to take away my citizenship. I am certain that there are many other immigrants to Canada who have survived far, far, far worse than what I have endured. Do not belittle their concerns.

You have been through a lot and I can understand why others' admonitions to "not worry about it," do not soothe the anxiety. The Liberals pledged to get rid of that stupid clause as among their first acts of government--lo and behold, its almost a year later and it is still on the books.

 

[links18]

With all due respect Nathan, I also think you're being paranoid.
Even if what you say is technically possible, it's not what the government has intended for that clause.
While it is technically possible, I don't see why they would bother people in such a way, they have other fishes to fry.

Other people have asked more information about the "intend to reside", but you're only one to be concerned in such a way.

That may not be what the government that passed that clause intended for it, but who knows what a future Christian Heritage government might do with it? :-\

 

[keesio]

You have been through a lot and I can understand why others' admonitions to "not worry about it," do not soothe the anxiety.

Yeah that is some story. Trauma can make people quite jumpy at everything - question everything. Not trust anything. It's tough to overcome. Common with refugees.

 

[Natan]

You have been through a lot and I can understand why others' admonitions to "not worry about it," do not soothe the anxiety. The Liberals pledged to get rid of that stupid clause as among their first acts of government--lo and behold, its almost a year later and it is still on the books.

Thank you for that, links18. I was fortunate enough to have applied for citizenship under the old rules. But I am still very sympathetic to those who have concerns with the "intent to reside" clause. And, honestly, it rankles when those anxieties are ridiculed and they are treated like they ought to be wearing tin-foil hats.

 

[Natan]

Yeah that is some story. Trauma can make people quite jumpy at everything - question everything. Not trust anything. It's tough to overcome. Common with refugees.

I am not a refugee. I am not jumpy. I am not untrusting. These are not issues I need to overcome. I practice a very healthy "constructive paranoia" whenever dealing with government, as any wise person would do.

I do, however, take umbrage at ridiculing persons who have legitimate, reasonable concerns regarding a clause of recent legislation that directly effects their applications for citizenship. Just because you don't care about it is no reason to upbraid those who do.

 

[keesio]

Not a refugee, but you and your spouse have certainly endured trauma and hardship that most would never thankfully have to go through. It's tough and takes a toll for sure.

 

[Natan]

The government can get away with all sorts of crap. If they really want to "get" you, they can find a way - whether with this rule or another one. Or they can make up a new rule and apply it retroactively (like what Burma did to screw over Aung San Suu Kyi). You can worry about anything. A lot of anti-government people spend their whole life worrying about the government coming to get them.

As you said, the scenario you outlined is not likely. But it can happen. A lot of things can happen. There are a host of other bigger issues that have wider impact than this rule that I am more concerned about.

While there is much truth in your statements, that does not mean that the "intent to reside" clause should be of any less concern to those who fear it may be used against them sometime in the future. Heaven help the poor, hapless citizen who finds themselves leaving for a couple of years after becoming a citizen, and after returning and living in Canada for the next 30 years suddenly being investigated for "fraud" under this clause. Or to the individual who sent some resumes to the USA while waiting to take the oath, and though never having moved from Canada, still finds themselves under "fraud" investigations when they apply for their retirement benefits 30 years later. We read stories like this all the time in the news, citizenship mishaps happen enough so that there's at least one case appearing in the news every year. It only take one of those cases to be YOUR case to make your life miserable.

I am a firm believer that governments should not be allowed to disenfranchise their nationals of citizenship under any circumstances. Once a citizen, always a citizen; unless the citizen, of their own free will, relinquishes/renounces their citizenship. I am opposed to all laws that undermine this principle.