C-6 not great for some of us

[Nlkko]

There's a dumb ass going around labeling people "liberals" this "conservatives" that. A good bill benefiting the country isn't partisan. This forum is largely a bunch of people who are looking to migrate to a better country for a better life. That is not partisan.

And then there's the OP who apparently hasn't grown up.

And you are commenting on here because you've been a PR for how long?

Maybe you don't deserve to be citizen of this great country with that kind of close-mindedness. Your complaint is basically "screw you guys, let me get mine first, then you can change whatever bill". Close your mouth (or your keyboard) and think about that for a second. Do you realize how dumb that sound? Go right down south with that kind of attitude.

The government managed to right a wrong and bozos still complaint. Idiots.

 

[dpenabill]

You were signing it as a PR. This only applied at PR stage. Once you become Canadian, you are no longer PR. The "intend to reside" contract is no longer valid.

Again, wrong. Just because you repeat a lie one thousand times it doesn't make it true. You do that quite often. If your "theory" about signing contracts in different stages was true, how come residency requirements apply for PR's? After all, they signed the application before they were PR's. You have failed to prove many points based on your skewed perception of facts. You should, for the good of people, refrain from posting anymore.

While screech339 gets more than a little wrong (in observations about actual requirements and procedures), this one is right . . . except the intent to reside requirement is not about contract obligations. The intent requirement was prescribed in former Subsection 5(1)(c.1), as what was required for a Permanent Resident to qualify for a grant of citizenship. No application whatsoever to anyone once they became a citizen. No binding contractual obligation to continue living in Canada once one became a citizen. And, indeed, any requirement of that sort would be a violation of Charter mobility rights anyway, and thus would not be valid . . . but again, it was prescribed as a qualification for PRs.

The right of citizenship generally is prescribed in Section 3 (not Section 5) of the Citizenship Act. Grounds for losing citizenship are prescribed in Section 10. There was no provision in these prescribing an intent to reside in Canada, and none even hinting of an obligation to reside in Canada.

Moreover, the PR Residency Obligation is not binding because of contract principles either. Canada can change the PR Residency Obligation any time Parliament decides a change is appropriate, so long as it properly follows the legislative process. Canada can then apply the change to existing PRs (no matter how long they have been a PR). No contract principles in play.

To be clear, contracts are about legally enforceable promises. The expression of a present intention is not a promise, let alone a legally binding or enforceable promise. This is basic contract law (very basic) in jurisdictions with legal systems derived from the British Common-law, like Canada.

 

[vikx01]

Bill C-6 is indeed in the right direction. However, the implementation maybe could be done by giving preference to those people who would be eligible for 4/6 at the time of application but could not apply at the completion of 3/5 because of the C-24 bill. This would wash away in a year. As to how this could be done, I don't know. Maybe it's an operational aspect that IRCC will do (or won't) and maybe it need not be specified in the law. I don't know.

Having Canadian citizenship has many benefits including (but not limited to) easier travel because the visa requirements in many countries are obviated. So delaying the process of getting one is not inconsequential.

Yes, many cases have been righted, but some cases will be "wronged" too, in so far as delaying the benefits that appertain to having a Canadian citizenship is considered a "wrong". I think there could have been more consideration given to possible delays in 4/6 cases and maybe there will be by IRCC; who knows!

But Hey! No one ever promised the world would be fair.

 

[cempjwi]

There's a dumb ass going around labeling people "liberals" this "conservatives" that. A good bill benefiting the country isn't partisan. This forum is largely a bunch of people who are looking to migrate to a better country for a better life. That is not partisan.

And then there's the OP who apparently hasn't grown up.


Maybe you don't deserve to be citizen of this great country with that kind of close-mindedness. Your complaint is basically "screw you guys, let me get mine first, then you can change whatever bill". Close your mouth (or your keyboard) and think about that for a second. Do you realize how dumb that sound? Go right down south with that kind of attitude.

The government managed to right a wrong and bozos still complaint. Idiots.

Actually, you in your quest to make a point has failed only due to the fact that you have speculated on what I've said. You have twisted my statements. My statement, in a nutshell, was that I would have to, like many others, wait longer times because twice as many application will come in due to the fact that the physical requirement was reduced a whole year. How that became what you are blabbering about is in your head. Now, shut it, since you can't read.

 

[cempjwi]

No application whatsoever to anyone once they became a citizen.

I understand that; however, while the intend to reside was effective during the entire application period, until granting of citizenship, if granted, you are still not free from the effects of what happens during the entire time your application was being processed: the intend may have remained but the conditions of the applicant may have changed. If this "intend" will continue to hunt you for the reminder of your life, even when you are free to leave Canada after citizenship is granted, then it is, in fact, applicable after you have become a citizen.

 

[screech339]

I understand that; however, while the intend to reside was effective during the entire application period, until granting of citizenship, if granted, you are still not free from the effects of what happens during the entire time your application was being processed: the intend may have remained but the conditions of the applicant may have changed. If this "intend" will continue to hunt you for the reminder of your life, even when you are free to leave Canada after citizenship is granted, then it is, in fact, applicable after you have become a citizen.

To each their own. If you want to live in fear over a "intend to reside" after obtaining citizenship, by all means go ahead. I am not stopping you. The liberals fell for it hook, line and sinker in believing something that isn't there or even enforceable.

I guess all the naturalized Britons must be living in fear outside UK for the rest of their lives as well. UK has the same "intend to reside" clause in it's citizenship law as well.