Citizens of Convenience -- a new study

[on-hold]

Here is a great bit of research that confirms what I've been arguing for some time now -- that Canadians abroad are a significant resource and that they see themselves as Canadian. I've said it before and I'll say it again, but the process of immigration is more complex than just "Land in Canada, stay forever"; and this is especially true when dealing with a transnational, educated, mercantile class.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/young-chinese-canadians-move-to-hong-kong-for-jobs/article19214355/

 

[paw339]

Here is a great bit of research that confirms what I've been arguing for some time now -- that Canadians abroad are a significant resource and that they see themselves as Canadian. I've said it before and I'll say it again, but the process of immigration is more complex than just "Land in Canada, stay forever"; and this is especially true when dealing with a transnational, educated, mercantile class.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/young-chinese-canadians-move-to-hong-kong-for-jobs/article19214355/

That article is not about Citizens of Convenience its about "Chinese-Canadians aged 23 to 32, many of whom were born in Canada or arrived with Hong Kong-born parents when they were children". A very different group to adult immigrants who might spend the minimum time in Canada, get Citizenship then leave.

An interesting article but perhaps a bit of a misleading subject title.

 

[on-hold]

Actually, no --- but that's because no one has ever provided any data that the 'citizens of convenience' actually exist. What does exist are large communities of transnational professionals, who are often slandered as citizens of convenience -- which, if you read the comments of this article, will provide some good examples. I'm very glad to hear you say that these people are not citizens of convenience, because large numbers of Canadians would call them that.

 

[paw339]

Personally I think citizens of convenience are more defined by their intent (that dreaded word) rather than their action of leaving Canada. They do exist as I've met a few in my travels.

 

[on-hold]

Yes, the anecdotal 'I've met a citizen of convenience', a very common statement. I have too -- birth Canadians who went to study in the United States, married or got jobs down there, settled down. Never paid a dime's worth of taxes in Canada, kept their passport, probably come back when they're 65 for free medical care and a good exchange rate. Aren't mentioned very often in public policy debates, though.

 

[EasyRider]

Is there an actual study showing systematic damage from "citizens of convenience" anywhere? Please, post a reference, if there is.

If highly skilled people can't find jobs and progress their careers here, why they would stay? I salute the ones for being capable to take care of themselves and their families instead of wasting away their lives and potential waiting for a miracle happen to them in Canada.

Anyway, if someone is in demand worldwide and competitive to be able to move from Canada to the US, Hong Kong or whatever and make a good living there, it's highly unlikely they will be the same kind of people not being able to use or afford healthcare (if it's not "free") locally as residents after leaving Canada.

I always thought the damage comes from the people who do exactly the opposite-- weak and sick people who are not needed anywhere else and stay in Canada and use healthcare and welfare in one form or another. I've actually seen more than one on the block. And guess what-- they're all in Canada-- here and now!

Stop demonizing Canadians who try to evolve and progress into something somewhere besides a stunted country which Canada is.

 

[paw339]

Is there an actual study showing systematic damage from "citizens of convenience" anywhere? Please, post a reference, if there is.

If highly skilled people can't find jobs and progress their careers here, why they would stay? I salute the ones for being capable to take care of themselves and their families instead of wasting away their lives and potential waiting for a miracle happen to them in Canada.

Anyway, if someone is in demand worldwide and competitive to be able to move from Canada to the US, Hong Kong or whatever and make a good living there, it's highly unlikely they will be the same kind of people not being able to use or afford healthcare (if it's not "free") locally as residents after leaving Canada.

I always thought the damage comes from the people who do exactly the opposite-- weak and sick people who are not needed anywhere else and stay in Canada and use healthcare and welfare in one form or another. I've actually seen more than one on the block. And guess what-- they're all in Canada-- here and now!

Stop demonizing Canadians who try to evolve and progress into something somewhere besides a stunted country which Canada is.

Who's demonising Canadians? I certainly wasn't.

 

[MrB]

Actually, no --- but that's because no one has ever provided any data that the 'citizens of convenience' actually exist. What does exist are large communities of transnational professionals, who are often slandered as citizens of convenience -- which, if you read the comments of this article, will provide some good examples. I'm very glad to hear you say that these people are not citizens of convenience, because large numbers of Canadians would call them that.

very well said

 

[EasyRider]

Not you, but whoever is obsessed with the coined "citizens of convenience".

Obviously, it's a diversion created by the politicians to gain points and channel some dissatisfaction of the populace onto, instead of focusing on the real issues.

"Citizens of convenience" is nothing compared to damage from barrage of issues this country faces, coming from within it.

 

[mikea]

There is defintely the criminal/insincere element that sees Canada as a free check/ride. However, majority of immigrant naturalized Canadians working outside of Canada identify themselves as Canadians and appreciate the connection to Canada. I agree that they should be asked to keep an on-going continuing connection with Canada (have a house even if it is rented out, file your taxes as Non-Resident Canadian etc) but to question and threaten a naturalized Canadian with loss of citizenship after they have completed their time in Canada - or benefited Canada through investment, living there, expenditure etc is complete utter nonsense. There are other countries which are welcoming and at some point immigration to Canada will fall with which will go the real estate sector and a large FDI in flow.

 

[torontosm]

Actually, no --- but that's because no one has ever provided any data that the 'citizens of convenience' actually exist. What does exist are large communities of transnational professionals, who are often slandered as citizens of convenience -- which, if you read the comments of this article, will provide some good examples. I'm very glad to hear you say that these people are not citizens of convenience, because large numbers of Canadians would call them that.

Here you go:

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=b43c941f-0503-4708-b962-a5f5258b29bb&k=37217

Hopefully this will prove to you that Citizens of Convenience do actually exist. How else do you explain 50k Canadians in Lebanon? Were all of these Canadian's attracted to Lebanon for the economic opportunities it afforded? For the high quality of education available? Of course not. These "Canadians" never had any intent of residing in Canada and returned home at the first opportunity they got. Until, of course, they needed something from Canadian taxpayers.

Now, just because someone hasn't invested tens of thousands of dollars to conduct a study to quantify the magnitude of the problem, it doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. Common sense would indicate that over the course of history, there would naturally be people (I'm not going to even venture a guess as to how many) that immigrated to Canada for a finite period of time solely to obtain citizenship for the benefits and security it affords, and that these people left as soon as they obtained their citizenship. If this wasn't the case, then why would the government have revised citizenship laws in 2009 to implement the first generation limitations?

 

[on-hold]

Here you go:


If this wasn't the case, then why would the government have revised citizenship laws in 2009 to implement the first generation limitations?

What the Canadian government did there made sense, and I'm very surprised it didn't occur decades ago. I don't think any country has citizenship laws that would permit citizenship to be passed down indefinitely with no connection to the home country. Maybe Ireland or Italy, or some other European country with a strong identity and a crummy economy, but personally I doubt it. Canada's change is a bit more extreme than that of the United States, where to pass on citizenship to your child (born outside the US) you have to demonstrate a number of years residence/association with America (not very many, basically getting a college degree there would do it); but it's still normal. I completely agree that the government is right to want to avoid self-perpetuating colonies of Canadians becoming established in Lebanon or Hong Kong, but this is an entirely different matter from people living there who are currently citizens.

 

[torontosm]

Here is a great bit of research that confirms what I've been arguing for some time now -- that Canadians abroad are a significant resource and that they see themselves as Canadian. I've said it before and I'll say it again, but the process of immigration is more complex than just "Land in Canada, stay forever"; and this is especially true when dealing with a transnational, educated, mercantile class.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/young-chinese-canadians-move-to-hong-kong-for-jobs/article19214355/

I'm not sure what exactly your point was by sharing this. The article clearly states that:
1) The group of Chinese-Canadians in question benefited from the free and subsidized education Canada affords;
2) Left Canada as soon as the education was completed, thereby never contributing any portion of their income to the Canadian economy (through taxes or otherwise);
3) Have no intention of returning to Canada in the near future; and
4) Would like to move back to Canada much later on (i.e., close to retirement) when they require Canada's healthcare system and when their families require free or subsidized education.

So, somehow, you are arguing that because these people feel "Canadian", it's ok for them to be a burden on the rest of us? Do you think your tax dollars are well spent supporting them?

 

[on-hold]

Here, let me make a few corrections and add a few details:

I'm not sure what exactly your point was by sharing this. The article clearly states that:
1) The group of Chinese-Canadians in question benefited from the free and subsidized education Canada affords;

The group of Canadians benefited from the free and subsidized education Canada afford, which was paid for partially with their parent's taxes;

2) Left Canada as soon as the education was completed, thereby never contributing any portion of their income to the Canadian economy (through taxes or otherwise);

Took the best jobs they could find that used their education, like all Canadians do when they graduate.

3) Have no intention of returning to Canada in the near future; and

Are working at those jobs, saving money, developing skills, and planning how to use their combination of Canadian and Chinese expertise;

4) Would like to move back to Canada much later on (i.e., close to retirement) when they require Canada's healthcare system and when their families require free or subsidized education.

Aren't thinking about retirement at all, owing to their being young Canadians; if they return for retirement, they'll bring the assets of a lifetime of productive professional work; feel a connection towards Canada, which is normal for people born, raised, and educated in Canada.


So, somehow, you are arguing that because these people feel "Canadian", it's ok for them to be a burden on the rest of us? Do you think your tax dollars are well spent supporting them?

How are my tax dollars supporting them? They're living in Hong Kong, they aren't building up credit towards any sort of Canadian pension, and while they were going to college they were supported by their parent's tax contribution, just like all Canadian students. Of course, they could follow the Canadian-Canadian model:

1) Go to college, major in liberal arts. Contribute no tax.
2) Graduate, work in Vancouver as coffee-drink-producer. Pay no tax, income too low.
-- use medical care
-- accumulate credit towards pensions
-- contribute to degradation of infrastructure through constant skateboarding
3) Smoke a lot of pot. Play bass. Watch 40 years pass them by.
4) Retire with full pensions. Rage about immigrants stealing resources.

 

[on-hold]

I'm not sure what exactly your point was by sharing this. The article clearly states that:
1) The group of Chinese-Canadians in question benefited from the free and subsidized education Canada affords;
2) Left Canada as soon as the education was completed, thereby never contributing any portion of their income to the Canadian economy (through taxes or otherwise);
3) Have no intention of returning to Canada in the near future; and
4) Would like to move back to Canada much later on (i.e., close to retirement) when they require Canada's healthcare system and when their families require free or subsidized education.

So, somehow, you are arguing that because these people feel "Canadian", it's ok for them to be a burden on the rest of us? Do you think your tax dollars are well spent supporting them?

What's interesting about this combination of complaints is that it could have been applied, for the entire 20th century, to the ambitious Canadians who grew up and moved to the United States to work (often not even studying in a Canadian university). But it wasn't! And in fact, in the 1970s, the citizenship laws were changed to these people would remain Canadians forever and not lose their citizenship. I wonder what's different about the group of people torontosm is raging about? There must be something, but I can't put my finger on it . . . I mean, some go to America, some go to Hong Kong, but in the end, we're just talking about Canadians, all born in Canada. What makes the two groups different?