Canadian citizen got job in USA

[futurecitizen]

Hi All,

I'm from India but in 2015 I became Canadian Citizen via Naturalization. I got job offer in USA and I have accepted the offer. My question is by taking the job offer I'm not jeopardizing my Canadian Citizenship. I'm and will remain Canadian Citizen for my life even though I work in USA for 10-15 years. The only way I can lose my citizenship if I renounce like i did for India.

Hope to have answer for my post ASAP

Thanks

 

[Moe975]

yes you are absolutely right.

 

[futurecitizen]

Thanks for the reply - you mean to say i will remain canadian not matter how long i'm absent from country

 

[Moe975]

yes. i believe you have to inform revenue canada, medicare and other agencies that u wont be resident of Canada

 

[foodie69]

Hi All,

I'm from India but in 2015 I became Canadian Citizen via Naturalization. I got job offer in USA and I have accepted the offer. My question is by taking the job offer I'm not jeopardizing my Canadian Citizenship. I'm and will remain Canadian Citizen for my life even though I work in USA for 10-15 years. The only way I can lose my citizenship if I renounce like i did for India.

Hope to have answer for my post ASAP

Thanks

What is your status in the US? Green card, work permit?

 

[frege]

Hi All,

I'm from India but in 2015 I became Canadian Citizen via Naturalization. I got job offer in USA and I have accepted the offer. My question is by taking the job offer I'm not jeopardizing my Canadian Citizenship. I'm and will remain Canadian Citizen for my life even though I work in USA for 10-15 years. The only way I can lose my citizenship if I renounce like i did for India.

Hope to have answer for my post ASAP

Thanks

Did you submit your naturalization application before or after June 2015?

 

[screech339]

Did you submit your naturalization application before or after June 2015?

It doesn't matter when the OP applied for citizenship. Once the OP becomes Canadian, intend to reside no longer applies.

 

[frege]

It doesn't matter when the OP applied for citizenship. Once the OP becomes Canadian, intend to reside no longer applies.

I know that.

The problem is that in theory, until Bill C-24 is repealed, leaving for another country later could be used as evidence that, at the time of taking the oath, the applicant hadn't originally intended to remain in Canada and therefore misrepresented himself.

Nobody has ever had their citizenship stripped under this provision of C-24, so it's hard to know how it would be applied. But the possibility that things would play out as I describe was one of the major arguments against this part of C-24.

 

[screech339]

I know that.

The problem is that in theory, until Bill C-24 is repealed, leaving for another country later could be used as evidence that, at the time of taking the oath, the applicant hadn't originally intended to remain in Canada and therefore misrepresented himself.

Nobody has ever had their citizenship stripped under this provision of C-24, so it's hard to know how it would be applied. But the possibility that things would play out as I describe was one of the major arguments against this part of C-24.

If you look at the law closely, you will see that the "intend to reside" clause only applies to PR. Thus once PR becomes Canadian, he/she is no longer PR. Since the "intend to reside" clause only applies to PR, it no longer applies to Canadians. So there is no theory that naturalized Canadians will lose citizenship due to leaving after obtaining citizenship.

 

[frege]

If you look at the law closely, you will see that the "intend to reside" clause only applies to PR. Thus once PR becomes Canadian, he/she is no longer PR. Since the "intend to reside" clause only applies to PR, it no longer applies to Canadians. So there is no theory that naturalized Canadians will lose citizenship due to leaving after obtaining citizenship.

Well, perhaps when the Canadian Bar Association reviewed C-24, they didn't look at the law as closely as you have. Because they said this:

D. Intent to Reside in Canada if Granted Citizenship
This proposal is one of the most troubling in Bill C-24 and is highly vulnerable to abuse. The
CBA Section strenuously opposes requiring applicants to demonstrate an intent to reside in
Canada if granted citizenship.
First, the proposed requirement is likely unconstitutional. It would distinguish between
naturalized and other Canadian citizens, and would violate mobility rights. It would create
two tiers of citizenship: natural born Canadian citizens, who could travel and live abroad
without restriction; and naturalized Canadians, who would risk losing their status if they were
ever to leave Canada. Naturalized citizens could find themselves in a situation where, despite
having an intent to reside in Canada at the time of application, need to go abroad temporarily
for employment or personal reasons. Under the Bill, a single officer would decide whether the
original intent to reside was a misrepresentation and potentially strip citizenship on this basis.
The intent requirement will result in a significant drain on CIC resources for both assessment
and enforcement. Processing times will inevitably be longer with a subjective review of each
applicant’s intent along with supporting documents. The requirement will not clarify or
simplify the criteria or processing of citizenship, contrary to the Bill’s objective.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The CBA Section recommends that the requirement that an applicant
demonstrate an intent to reside in Canada if granted citizenship be eliminated.

Source: http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=101fdebf-5af8-4ab4-acc7-154959d32876

 

[links18]

IRCC/CIC seems to have little appetite to enforce the intent to reside provision in any event under the Liberals. But both Screech and frege are right, the intent to reside provision applies only to PRs who have applied for citizenship until the oath. However, it certainly is possible a future regressive government might try to revoke the citizenship of someone who moves abroad shortly after the oath for misrepresentation. The chances of that happening today is so remote that it probably isn't worth sweating.

 

[screech339]

Well, perhaps when the Canadian Bar Association reviewed C-24, they didn't look at the law as closely as you have. Because they said this:

Source: http://www.cba.org/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=101fdebf-5af8-4ab4-acc7-154959d32876

You do realize lawyers want to make money right? Otherwise they will be out of business.

 

[futurecitizen]

I applied for citizenship in 2014 and got citizenship in 2015. I applied under old rules before the bill was introduced

 

[willzou]

I applied for citizenship in 2014 and got citizenship in 2015. I applied under old rules before the bill was introduced

Nobody can know the result.
Just go and see.

 

[Gallant555]

You guys are right. Check this video for Clarification for "Intent to reside"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk