Changes to Immigration Regs affecting spousal/cl/cp applications expected soon.

[Dayanara]

Also.. I guess this might just be me, but I've yet to meet any 'common law' people who are at the level of a marriage.

Probably just you. Marriage is a personal choice for many, a religious choice for others, and for some the worst thing you could ever do.

I believe in marriage, however, not against people living common-law either. My uncle (dad's brother) and aunt have been together since I was about 4 or 5 years old, I am 28 now. They very much so have the same level as a married couple, believe me. I see them, I see my parents (who are married), no real difference.

Marriage does not also mean one man and one woman either. I have friends that have been married for 15+ years but they have a polyamorous relationship and both have a gf/bf on the side. It works for them, so great, they are happy, but not my choice of lifestyle. But who am I to criticize? They are good people and in love with each other, that is all that matters.

And in the end yes, that is all that matters, love. Married, common-law, straight, gay, bi, arranged, religious, non-religious (insert any other type of relationship here)...as long as the relationship is true, it should not matter.

 

[waitingintz]

Honeybird, that's where all of this came from. Some members posted that it is suspicous that people applied for PR shortly after marriage and that everyone just needed to apply as conjugal or common law first and then get married later. I was trying to explain that not everyone thinks it's ok to live together before they are married. Then other people began to chime in with things like marriage is just a piece of paper, that it's not part of their culture to be married before living together so it was hard for them to understand why I would marry and then apply for PR (which is news to me here in North America!), etc.

Ok.. it was around 7 pages ago and the comment was that it seems likely that those applications submitted very shortly after a marriage would be the ones that are mainly affected by the proposed new regulations (remember that was the point of this thread). I didn't say that they SHOULD be suspected, just that the regulations sounded like they would affect those people (extra checking of reasons behind marriage probably won't be looked at as closely for couple who've been married for 10 years). I also suggested that there is a lot of pressure on couples to get married before applying because it's thought that married couples will get approved more easily and I don't think people should be pressured into something like marriage (especially if they are then targeted for doing so)

This is supposed to be a place for open discussion of subjects but people are getting super defensive. Everyone's entitled to their opinion but this should be a place to discuss ideas... not judge and criticize.

If you thought it was offensive that I thought people who apply very soon after marriage might be targeted then I'm sorry but it's also very offensive to take everyone in a common-law relationship and judge them as non-committed and wanting to keep an opening to cheat. My common-law partner is moving all the way to Canada, away from his family, friends, home, business, etc because he's that committed to me. I know marriages that have fallen apart over much less. Unfortunately, IOs must judge and make a decision... doesn't mean we have to do it to each other.

Is it horribly naive to say can't we all just use this as an opportunity to share idea and hear other perspectives without judging?? I'm sure we've all got enough stress in our lives at the moment...

 

[lynw]

Also.. I guess this might just be me, but I've yet to meet any 'common law' people who are at the level of a marriage. One or both of them sleep around, they say they would get married but want to collect welfare as single mothers, they say they don't know if they are committed to the other person enough to get married but somehow they are committed enough to have multiple children... I just personally don't see it. As I said, if it works for other people, whatever.. but people don't need to judge me because it doesn't work for me.

Wow, you've met some rather low-life people. As far as I can tell, and again just from personal friendships, the common-law relationships actually tend to be stronger and deeper. The data sets are too small to draw any conclusions, but what's wrong with everyone just doing what's right for them as long as they behave decently towards others?

 

[sbwv09]

Wow, you've met some rather low-life people. As far as I can tell, and again just from personal friendships, the common-law relationships actually tend to be stronger and deeper. The data sets are too small to draw any conclusions, but what's wrong with everyone just doing what's right for them as long as they behave decently towards others?

That's what I always said, but then came all these negative comments about marriages and timelines and, yes, I probably overreacted. I'm very sorry if I hurt anyone.. and yes, I am a small town person who doesn't know people from a great variety of backgrounds and such. I try to be open minded and it just hurts when others don't afford me the same courtesy. Isn't it just as wrong to say that a marriage happened too quickly than it is to say that common law shouldn't be allowed, or that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? (For the record, I support marriage for EVERYONE. The most healthy marriage I've ever seen is between two women)

waitingintz It wasn't just you and your comments; there were several people that said things that upset me far worse than what you posted. Thanks for coming back and clarifying And good luck with your PR.

 

[Dayanara]

I'm very sorry if I hurt anyone..

We still love you, no worries. <3 Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

 

[buddhadimple]

Some people are extremely self centered to think that my entire post was directed towards them or was about them.

Well when you type at the end of your post, "Maybe you should judge people...", then yes. I tend to think it is directed at me. At no point did you specify any difference.

I read it as it was written.

Several people on here have made similar comments, such as marriage being nothing more than a piece of paper, etc. If it doesn't apply to you, it is obviously not directed towards you.

Well, comments like the "baby's daddy" one were totally irrelevant and pulled out of no-where with no citations or examples, so I don't think you can blame me for not knowing which comments are based on other peoples' comments and which are ones you have just typed without source.

I read it as it was written.

But you and several others did say that it is suspicious for people to apply for PR without waiting a long time after marriage.

No, what I said was:
Unless it's impossible for two people to live together and apply under Common-Law or Conjugal, I too get a bit suspicious when I see, "Met December 2008. Married March 2009. Applied for Visa April 2009." To me, you have known a person for 3-4 months before applying to Sponsor them, a huge undertaking and something that could cause you three years of trouble if you're wrong (10 with children, plus the potential effects it has on children).


Saying that "I get a bit suspicious" is a long way from saying that it IS suspicious (as in, that everyone should feel it is suspicious, or, as in it is a fact that it is suspicious). Clearly, I was saying my feelings; which, of course, are based on my own personal experience and influence. I don't pretend to argue that I am unbiased.

And I was the ONLY one to use the word "suspicious" besides yourself.

THAT is an overgeneralization and is wrong. Not everyone believes that wedding is 'icing on the cake' of a long live in relationship. Most of the world believes it is the beginning of a life together.

Maybe it is an over-generalisation, and of course it's biased, but who are you to say it's "wrong"? I am not in the position of a Visa Officer and I have no obligation to maintain an unbiased view. I am willing to learn and explore about all forms of cultural norms, but I would never say one is wrong. I have only said up to this point that when I am faced with situations that are not normal to me, I am hesitant in how I feel about them. That's perfectly natural. And we're not talking about "most of the world". We're talking about Canada and Canada has a wide variety of accepted forms of relationships. I believe it will be the "icing on the cake" of my long living relationship. Why would I care about the "rest of the world"? That's what works for me, and lucky for me, that is accepted in my country.

Keep in mind that a 'common law marriage' doesn't even exist where I am from.

Well it does where I come from (Canada).




@ HoneyBird, I totally respect everything you said.

My personal belief is that if you love someone that much, you should commit and marry them.

Mine differs.

If you can't handle the arguments about who does the dishes and the laundry, then you aren't ready to be adult, much less a spouse.

If I married a man who demanded that women pick up all the "household chores" as well as cooking every night and perhaps even putting my own career path on hold to fulfil "homely duties", then yes, I would not be able to handle that. But that is not a minor issue for me. That is an issue of sexism and a challenge to my personal independence and life goals. It doesn't matter how "adult" you are. If you have fundamental differences when it comes to living together, I'd rather find out before I married him. But that's me.

If you are willing to immigrate to be with someone, it should be someone you love enough to marry, right?

No. I am not religious and I feel no pressure to marry someone I'm sponsoring. I'm sponsoring him because I trust our relationship based on its strength and based on my trust, respect, and love for my partner which is mutual. I have gauged that our relationship will last and that is why I have "gambled" with the Sponsorship. I do not believe anything will go wrong. Why should I have to conform to tradition's opinion that I should make a religious commitment, or a civil one that is solely based on a religious one? As I said, for me, marriage (non-religious, formal marriage) is something to celebrate a successful relationship, not to start a relationship off - but again, that's me.

I realize many people feel differently, and that's fine. My own in laws are unmarried. However, if you come in here and dismiss my beliefs as illegitimate and unacceptable and something that CIC should regard with skepticism, the gloves come off.

Please tell me where I said that I have come here to dismiss your beliefs as illegitimate and unacceptable and something that CIC should regard with skepticism.





@ HoneyBird, once again I agree with you 100%

That's exactly the thing though.. many of us don't see marriage as 'man made'. It's a big part of our religious beliefs.

What I think HoneyBird meant is that it is a ceremony which only humans practice, and therefore is man-made. You can argue that it was from divine instruction, but the point is that it doesn't happen in the Animal Kingdom.

Also.. I guess this might just be me, but I've yet to meet any 'common law' people who are at the level of a marriage. One or both of them sleep around, they say they would get married but want to collect welfare as single mothers, they say they don't know if they are committed to the other person enough to get married but somehow they are committed enough to have multiple children... I just personally don't see it. As I said, if it works for other people, whatever.. but people don't need to judge me because it doesn't work for me.

Are you serious!?

Sleeping around: Happens in ALL types of relationships. How can you possible say that if it's common-law, then one or both sleep around? That's absolutely proposterous. It IS possible to make a solid commitment to someone else that is not under God or under City Hall. The thing I personally like about it is that in a Common-Law Relationship, you base your decision solely on your ability to gauge your partner's trustworthiness based on your experience with them, as well as your experience living with them. It's a bond and a commitment made under the strength of your existing relationship. To me, that is pretty powerful.

Welfare: I don't know anyone who says they would get married but want to collect welfare as Single Mothers. If there are, whatever. You can't sum up the whole of the Common-Law population by some benefit scrounger. Besides, Common-Law (in Canada) matters, so if someone is living with their common-law spouse and collecting, that is illegal.

Not committed: Obviously you're not talking about a Common-Law relationship since Common-Law relationship ARE commitments. If a couple have multiple children, and live together and have lived together for years, what is not a commitment about that? If you're talking about people who "sleep around" and "fraudulently claim benefits", where one partner does not live with the other, you're not talking about a Common-Law couple; or do you mean they don't want to get married. If that's the case, who cares? It sure doesn't show lack of commitment.

I just personally don't see it. As I said, if it works for other people, whatever.. but people don't need to judge me because it doesn't work for me.

No one has judged you.

Well, the arguement can (and you can be sure it will) be made that anyone married or not can sleep around with multiple partners. This is a worldly issue not just a common law couple issue.

I agree with sbwv09 that people should be married to live together and have a life long relationship. This is a personal choice and decision for me. I do not condemn anyone that makes another choice. This is a personal choice that you have to make for yourself.

Respect and agreed.

My problem is that someone is trying to tell us that if we make this choice of marriage that we should not be applying so quickly after we are married because it is suspicious?? That to me does not make sense.

No one has said that.

Personally I don't care when someone applies as long as the relationship is truly genuine then it does not matter to me the timeline. It all comes down to the issue of genuiness of the relationship. It is a matter of integrity. If you have a real true relationship with someone then who am I to say how quickly you apply? It is the people that are in marriages of convenience merely to obtain a visa to enter Canada that I have an issue with.. not timing.

Yes, I agree once again. The point was that "how do you tell" if it is a marriage of convenience, and it was brought up that when you look at timelines that show marriage shortly after meeting and then an application shortly thereafter, it COULD be seen as suspicious by posters on this forum, not by Immigration. It was a simple fact, and one that has been taken personally and blown way out of proportion.

I am sorry but they are not the same, if it the same why they did not get married.

Because they either a) are not religious, b) don't believe in marriage, c) believe marriage is meant for a different purpose, or d) any other reason besides lack of commitment.

they just do not want to be, because common law give both space todate others and to take off anytime, but married more deep.
this is my opinion,

I respect your opinion; however, that is not the case for me nor most of my Common-Law friends. We do not want to date others or take off time. We are fully committed, but we use the trust in one another that has been built over time as the strength in our commitment, not a formal vow in front of friends and family. It is more like a promise to one another, which has been earned over time.

and God knows the best

While I respect your beliefs, I am not religious and therefore it is my opinion that I know what is best for me, while both myself and my partner know what is best for our relationship.

If they don't belong to a religion that's fine, but don't come in here saying that those who are married shortly before applying for PR should be looked at with skepticism.

PLEASE show me where ANYONE has said that people in your situation "should be looked at with skepticism". As far as I am aware, no one has ever said that and you are making it up.

I say I don't judge them because I never say a word.. I would have never said a word about it on here either until people came in here judging me by my timeline and marriage!

Please show me where someone has judged you based on your timeline and marriage. As far as I can read, no one has.

I didn't start this but I'm not taking it lying down.

You attacked someone who simply put out a thought. It didn't have to "turn into" anything until you went on about how "wrong" they were and how "offended" you were because they indirectly said something that loosely fits your situation, and then accused them of saying things which were never said. And what exactly are you not "taking"? No one is giving you anything to "take".

I'm sorry if those things offended the live in people but I was just explaining that that is all I have ever seen live in couples do both at home and in Canada. I feel that explaining that would help them see why I believe that marriage is the true binding relationship and why I wouldn't apply for PR otherwise.

Finally. You have feelings based on your experiences and influences. That's fine. Based on that, you find Common-Law relationships suspicious, perhaps? ;D That's natural.

Therefore, they don't need to think that 'quick' (in their eyes) marriages are suspicious.

And if you believe in a religion, you obviously don't believe that it is man made. I don't worship human beings.

That's fine.

Honeybird, that's where all of this came from. Some members posted that it is suspicous that people applied for PR shortly after marriage and that everyone just needed to apply as conjugal or common law first and then get married later.

No they didn't.

I was trying to explain that not everyone thinks it's ok to live together before they are married. Then other people began to chime in with things like marriage is just a piece of paper, that it's not part of their culture to be married before living together so it was hard for them to understand why I would marry and then apply for PR (which is news to me here in North America!), etc.

None of this ever happened. Maybe you should read back through the posts.

This is what happened:

1) Someone said they noticed that some people got married and then submitted their application shortly after and this person perceived that as odd.

2) This person was attacked by the people who were in situations that loosely fit that scenerio, then took ownership of it (so you're saying that our marriage is not valid, huh?), and got all offended when it wasn't even directed at anyone.

3) I backed up the original person, saying that s/he had an honest observation, and that I get a bit suspicious when I see the same thing in a timeline. (Never said it should be looked at with skepticism, never said that it IS suspicious [as in, to everyone, or is suspicious in general], only ever said that I personally feel a certain way based on my experience and influence in my life.

4) Continuation of "So you're saying this about me, huh?"

5) Continuation of "No, no one said that about you."

6) Continuation of "Look everyone what she is saying about me."

7) Continuation of "No, no one said that about you."

etc. etc. etc.

That's what I always said, but then came all these negative comments about marriages and timelines and, yes, I probably overreacted. I'm very sorry if I hurt anyone.. and yes, I am a small town person who doesn't know people from a great variety of backgrounds and such. I try to be open minded and it just hurts when others don't afford me the same courtesy. Isn't it just as wrong to say that a marriage happened too quickly than it is to say that common law shouldn't be allowed, or that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed? (For the record, I support marriage for EVERYONE. The most healthy marriage I've ever seen is between two women)

waitingintz It wasn't just you and your comments; there were several people that said things that upset me far worse than what you posted. Thanks for coming back and clarifying And good luck with your PR.

I agree with everything you said except what's in bold, because you were afforded the same courtesy since no one ever told you that your relationship was in any way invalid.

All I will respond to is the Italics, because again, no one said your marriage happened too quickly. For the last time, it was a loose comment based on a simple, general observation given the context of the subject at hand. It was never meant, nor should have been taken as, a personal attack.

 

[HoneyBird]

How did you quote and comment for such a long post?

I have tried to quote but once the passage for instance is too long, when I try to type it jumps constantly and I cannot see the words that I am typing. I don't know how to fix this problem and it irks me!

 

[buddhadimple]

How did you quote and comment for such a long post?

I have tried to quote but once the passage for instance is too long, when I try to type it jumps constantly and I cannot see the words that I am typing. I don't know how to fix this problem and it irks me!

Notepad. Copy & Paste. LOL!

 

[HoneyBird]

ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...i thought i could of done it right in the box. Neat! Thank you.

 

[rjessome]

Wow! I never anticipated such debate when I started this thread. I won't comment on what I "believe" to be correct about marriage, common-law or conjugal partnerships. BUT, if this topic started so much debate, just IMAGINE you are a VO trying to make the same decisions. They ARE people too and as such, have personal experiences and opinions. This is the MOST subjective category of immigration.

The best they can do is apply the law as it is written, use the guidelines they are provided with, as well as the cultural knowledge they have themselves and that of locally engaged staff (which ALL overseas embassies have). They must try to put their personal prejudices/feelings/opinions aside but they are not machines. Every one of you has had a "gut feeling" about someone for no reason that you could pinpoint and so do they. The law often requires them to go against that feeling which has to be extremely difficult (especially if they are right). They also trade information (not personal) about scams with other staff of other foreign embassies. For example, a few years back a big scam was discovered in India where wedding guests were "rented" out in order to make wedding pictures and celebrations look more authentic. They found out through information sharing with embassies of other countries. One embassy had discovered it and let the others know. Sure enough, they found the same thing happening with applicants to Canada.

There is no exact science to this and Canada will (I hope) never push one set of beliefs over another. Setting rules like "should be in a realtionship for 1 year before applying" would negate arranged marriages. That's not how they work. And funnily enough, arranged marriages have a lower percentage of divorce than "love" marriages.

Canada does a pretty good job of setting broad and encompassing guidelines to be cognizant of the variety of cultural, religious and geographical norms while accepting many exceptions to the rules. 15 years ago internet relationships were considered false. Now they are the norm. Canada recognizes that. I'm proud that our immigration system offers the opportunity for same sex couples to be considered unlike MANY other nations. But true genuineness is only known in the minds of the applicants & sponsors. So until CIC discovers mind reading techniques, there will be no perfect process to decision making in this category.

The proposed amendments to the Regs are protectionist and have to do with why the applicant entered into the relationship in the first place. This is going to change the range and focus of interview questions and people should be prepared for that. I personally think the changes are a step backward but the government is reacting to bad press. That's what governments do. The genuiness debate will continue to rage on and on but these changes are not about genuineness.

BTW, I agree that there are some VOs that need to go. They are burnt out and angry. Who knows why but it's time to retire for some. I know one who retired for that reason. She said she was tired of getting lied to, the overwhelming workload, and a variety of other things and found that the negatives were getting more difficult to put into perspective in order to do her job properly. She realized it was time to move on and retired from CIC. She lasted 10 years and says it took her at least 5 years afterward to shake off her inclination to be suspicious of everyone's motives. Apparently burn out is quite common.

 

[BlueDragon17846]

I certainly think that Immigration (and everybody else applying for PR) would have a whole lot less of a headache if there were just a simple system such as: When you get married, you are eligible for PR. If and when you get divorced, you have your PR revoked (and your citizenship, if you've gotten to that point) and you are told that you must return to your home country. The idea being, you initially came to Canada because you were married to a Canadian citizen (or PR). When you divorce, you have nulified that contract. Therefore, your PR (or Canadian citizenship) status is null and void. Simple, clear and logical.

I know it sounds harsh, but you have to admit, that would clear up a whole lot of problems with this sticky "genuine" argument. And also, you'd probably find a whole lot less people applying, knowing what they are up against. Applications numbers and processing times go down. Everything is starightforward on the app processing end.

Yes, a PR would have to give up rights to privacy. The government would be looking intently at tax records, etc. to make sure that you haven't separated, but I know that I would gladly give up that right if it meant a smoother ride through this process, getting proper health care and a job sooner, so that we can move forward more quickly with our lives.

 

[giggles1985]

I see your point, BlueDragon. The biggest drawback to that policy that I can see is that it could potentially encourage some unscrupulous Canadians to keep their spouse as a slave, holding the threat of deportation over their head to make them do their bidding. And would likewise encourage the immigrant to stay in a hostile or abusive relationship to avoid going back to their home country and having to leave the kids, job, friends, what have you.

 

[rjessome]

I certainly think that Immigration (and everybody else applying for PR) would have a whole lot less of a headache if there were just a simple system such as: When you get married, you are eligible for PR. If and when you get divorced, you have your PR revoked (and your citizenship, if you've gotten to that point) and you are told that you must return to your home country. The idea being, you initially came to Canada because you were married to a Canadian citizen (or PR). When you divorce, you have nulified that contract. Therefore, your PR (or Canadian citizenship) status is null and void. Simple, clear and logical.

I know it sounds harsh, but you have to admit, that would clear up a whole lot of problems with this sticky "genuine" argument. And also, you'd probably find a whole lot less people applying, knowing what they are up against. Applications numbers and processing times go down. Everything is starightforward on the app processing end.

Yes, a PR would have to give up rights to privacy. The government would be looking intently at tax records, etc. to make sure that you haven't separated, but I know that I would gladly give up that right if it meant a smoother ride through this process, getting proper health care and a job sooner, so that we can move forward more quickly with our lives.

What about children? Or length of marriage? Establishment in Canada? No, this is a bad idea that would never fly.

Can you imagine? For example, a couple who went through the immigration process get a divorce 10 years after landing in Canada. In that 10 years they have 2 CANADIAN children. So the government should force one of the parents to leave those children? The children would be forced to say goodbye to one parent OR move to a country that is NOT their home and say goodbye to the Canadian parent?

What if the marriage lasted 20 years? A person spent 20 years establishing themselves in Canada. Now they have to give all that up?

No way. I see where you were going with this but no way will it happen because it's not so simple, clear or logical if you really think about it.

 

[BlueDragon17846]

I see your point, BlueDragon. The biggest drawback to that plicy that I can see is that it could potentially encourage some unscrupulous Canadians to keep their spouse as a slave, holding the threat of deportation over their head to make them do their bidding. And would likewise encourage the immigrant to stay in a hostile or abusive relationship to avoid going back to their home country and having to leave the kids, job, friends, what have you.

That is very true, and would definitely be a downside to the whole thing. After all, you never know 100% what you are getting into when you are getting married.

However, the hope would be that you would have known the person long enough and spent enough time together with them/their family/their friends/their home, etc. to be sure this is the step you do want to take---all of the things that you have to wrack your brain trying to convince an IO of.
The idea is--if a couple is willing to stand in front of their friends and family and vow to be with each other "til death do us part", or whatever the ceremony, that should be enough to suggest it's for each other, for the rest of their lives--just like it always was. Sadly, it doesn't anymore, and that's why we need papers upon papers upon photos and whatnot to try to convince and IO, that "even through we said 'I do', yes, we really do mean 'I do'"

You are right. Even if you think you know them/their family, etc. well, you don't know if your sponsor is going to suddenly flip a switch, have a complete personality change, and turn around and abuse you the next minute, but then again, you never really know that won't happen when you get married anyway.

 

[whoopi83]

I certainly think that Immigration (and everybody else applying for PR) would have a whole lot less of a headache if there were just a simple system such as: When you get married, you are eligible for PR. If and when you get divorced, you have your PR revoked (and your citizenship, if you've gotten to that point) and you are told that you must return to your home country. The idea being, you initially came to Canada because you were married to a Canadian citizen (or PR). When you divorce, you have nulified that contract. Therefore, your PR (or Canadian citizenship) status is null and void. Simple, clear and logical.

I know it sounds harsh, but you have to admit, that would clear up a whole lot of problems with this sticky "genuine" argument. And also, you'd probably find a whole lot less people applying, knowing what they are up against. Applications numbers and processing times go down. Everything is starightforward on the app processing end.

Yes, a PR would have to give up rights to privacy. The government would be looking intently at tax records, etc. to make sure that you haven't separated, but I know that I would gladly give up that right if it meant a smoother ride through this process, getting proper health care and a job sooner, so that we can move forward more quickly with our lives.

There is no way I'd have moved here if this was the law!! Many others wouldn't either, and what you'd be left with is a whole load of Canadians staying abroad and and an economy that did not have the skilled workforce to sustain itself. I am educated and gave up a career, a house and a life to move here. As rjessome has posted, there are too many issues with such a draconian measure, children for one.

As for privacy and the Charter rights... not sure that once a citizen, any immigrant would be able to to be stripped of such rights - it would create a two tier (or more) system which would be even more difficult for government people to regulate and enforce anyway!