citizenship by convenience

[alok4best]

You use the example of 1 Canadian/Indian to highlight COC, hardly a large sample.
Not everyone doesn't know anything about Canada in fact I know more about Canadian history than some people who were supposedly born and lived in Canada for their entire lives. Should these people be stripped off their citizenship?
Insofar as banning dual citizenship, most developed countries allow it (with the exception of Japan). Even South Korea now allows it under circumstances. The world is evolving and we should be moving ahead. As for India, it is a racist country marred by the caste system and many other processes of stratification. It is hardly a good example for other countries. More countries are in fact starting to allow dual citizenship. I already covered citizenship based taxation and why it's a bad idea. It doesn't solve anything with the US being a case in point as the only country aside from Eritrea that implements this cruel system.
Finally, most countries allow naturalization after a certain point in time and implement testing procedures like Canada. This is not unique to Canada. You say : "Immigrants should be asked to invest themselves in Canada, make sacrifices, like giving up their original citizenship to show that they really value and take pride in Canadian citizenship. Such steps would also take care of people who abandon Canada after becoming citizens, and keep this passport as a backup for a rainy day". How would abandoning their citizenship translate into greater loyalty, and by working and studying and spending money in Canada for years they have made sacrifices and invested dearly. You just like our Pakistani friend torontosm are blinded by right-wing propaganda. Dear oh dear you South Asians make me laugh. If you're so patriotic you should've stayed in India then why are you in Canada?

Well, I gave one example. But you conveniently ignored that I also mentioned knowing more instances similar to this. And why are you getting so worked up. Just like you, I also have a right to opinion. I guess you are from so called "left liberal" school of thought. Ironically, it is the liberals who start name calling and what not the moment someone differs to their thought process. The moment I state my opinion, not only I, but the whole India becomes racist. And I am suddenly blinded by right-wing propaganda. Oh boy, guess who really is the bigot here.
P.S. And who are you to question why I am in Canada and not in India. For all I know, all the countries I have lived in, I lived on valid residence permits which I obtained through proper legal framework. In Canada, and before this in Germany and UK, I was a tax payer from day1, did not even claim a penny of benefits even though I contributed to social security everywhere. And through all this, I retained my Indian citizenship because it matters to me.. You are no one to question my loyalty here. And for all I know, I am not one of the people rushing to apply for Canadian citizenship after 4 years. So unless you know my background and my circumstances, you have no right to make sweeping assumptions that I or my country is racist or whatever. Keep your bigotry to yourself.

 

[HighFive]

The whole concept of "citizens of convenience" is BS.

If they want to stop "citizens of convenience" our Parliament needs to get law in place that everyone who wants to be Canadian need to give up ALL their previous citizenships.
The 12+ pages of chit-chat created here in just 3 days is non-sense.

 

[alok4best]

alok4best
Fighting against the CoC is just like fighting against the corruption at the very high levels.
Many people realize that the corruption is bad but almost everyone knows that it will always be there.

Here the actual problem is that even proper legal definition doesn't exist.
The actual prove in a legal sense is mission impossible simply because the intentions of one person can always change during time.

Even the Conservative MP Tilson admitted that being CoC is a right, hence Perfectly Legal.

Being sponsored parent or grand parent here is just another example of couple of thousand people per year who will end up using the health system without any taxes being payed here.

The whole issue is full with subjectivity.

I know buddy. That's why I said that it is next to impossible to define COC in a purely legal term.
And this is why it will never pass the trial of law.
There will always be people who will have genuine need to live outside Canada after they become citizens, and there will also be people who will leech on the benefits.
On this forum, we are merely speaking what we think.
Unfortunately, some of the "liberal" frnds here have issues even with me opining something. What an irony.

 

[torontosm]

But you still have Pakistani citizenship, right? If one day you decide to move back there permanently, you'll still be able to receive social benefits like any other Pakistani citizen, right? How is this any different from the so-called Canadian of Convenience?

Yes, when I move back to Pakistan, and start taking whatever little social benefits are available to citizens there, you can accuse me of being a CoC. But, given that I have no intention of ever doing so, I fail to see the point of your post.

 

[torontosm]

The whole concept of "citizens of convenience" is BS.

If they want to stop "citizens of convenience" our Parliament needs to get law in place that everyone who wants to be Canadian need to give up ALL their previous citizenships.
The 12+ pages of chit-chat created here in just 3 days is non-sense.

You are confusing dual citizens with CoC. Someone born in Canada with only a single citizenship could be termed a CoC as well. I suggest you go back and read the entire thread to understand the argument before trying to add your two cents in your condescending tone.

 

[ZingyDNA]

Yes, when I move back to Pakistan, and start taking whatever little social benefits are available to citizens there, you can accuse me of being a CoC. But, given that I have no intention of ever doing so, I fail to see the point of your post.

Do you have any stats on the percentage of Canadians overseas who will move back? How do you know they have any intention of ever coming back? You can't accuse them of doing something they might do in the future.

 

[Politren]

You are confusing dual citizens with CoC. Someone born in Canada with only a single citizenship could be termed a CoC as well. I suggest you go back and read the entire thread to understand the argument before trying to add your two cents in your condescending tone.

hmm... according to some participants here CoC can be only those who seeks Canadian citizenship as a safety net, hence a person born here is excluded from being CoC, you and screech339 think that this is not correct and that a person born here can also be deemed CoC.
According to dpenabill is the total opposite

I just love the whole subjectivity here ;D Nobody can describe even what exactly is CoC

Who is actually CoC? ;D

 

[alok4best]

I hate the entire concept of CoC.

It is crystal clear that if CoC exists then every single immigrants in this country are CoC of their country of birth. They born in a different country and for their own benefit moved here in Canada.

Some will argue that they didn't take any benefit from pakistan, india, bla bla bla. Off course you did. your mom was able to stand on that country's soil holding you inside her womb. Thats the biggest benefit. what if that country force her to go in no mans land?

To be honest, a true citizen is someone dedicate their entire life(Born-death) to one single country. We all CoC of some country.

And yes, Marriage of convenience is not same as canadian of convenience. Pakistan and fcukistan sounds similar but they have some differences. MoC is a marriage that you want to get out of that marriage after some time but Coc is a citizenship which you wanna hold on.

Agreed to an extent. But it's not true for all countries.
For e.g. when you leave India for good, you are mandated to give up Indian citizenship.
This means that you are no longer entitled to benefits and privileges a citizen has.
Like you can't vote, can't get subsidized education etc etc.
To be able to hold on to these privileges, you must maintain citizenship and ties back home.
P.S. You can actually lose voting rights if you are abroad for a long time, despite being a citizen, because you cannot prove residency anymore.

 

[Politren]

Agreed to an extent. But it's not true for all countries.
For e.g. when you leave India for good, you are mandated to give up Indian citizenship.
This means that you are no longer entitled to benefits and privileges a citizen has.
Like you can't vote, can't get subsidized education etc etc.
To be able to hold on to these privileges, you must maintain citizenship and ties back home.
P.S. You can actually lose voting rights if you are abroad for a long time, despite being a citizen, because you cannot prove residency anymore.

If a person who revokes his Indian passport goes back in India as a Canadian citizen, he is still CoC because while he/she is in India he/she is using the Indian infrastructure without paying enough for it. During that time he/she is a burden for the Indian society.
I am using to logic of torontosm regarding that the roads are also benefit for immigrants in Canada because we all use them for transportation. ;D

 

[screech339]

The key word with regarding to CoC is "Intent". If someone wants to get Canadian citizenship and takes off to another country with NO INTENTIONS to come back and use Canada health care, subsidized education, including not asking for Canada to bail them out in times of turmoil. In other words, NEVER coming back and use any of Canada's social benefits. BTW, that includes not expecting Canada to help if they get into trouble with the country's law (i.e. Fahmy - Used Egyptian Passport instead of Canadian). Then I believe that person is not considered a CoC. But if this person has NO INTENTION of coming back to Canada to use the benefits, why do they bother getting citizenship in the first place. Oh yes, using Canada as a stepping stone or a doormat.

 

[Politren]

The key word with regarding to CoC is "Intent". If someone wants to get Canadian citizenship and takes off to another country with NO INTENTIONS to come back and use Canada health care, subsidized education, including not asking for Canada to bail them out in times of turmoil. In other words, NEVER coming back and use any of Canada's social benefits. BTW, that includes not expecting Canada to help if they get into trouble with the country's law (i.e. Fahmy - Used Egyptian Passport instead of Canadian). Then I believe that person is not considered a CoC. But if this person has NO INTENTION of coming back to Canada to use the benefits, why do they bother getting citizenship in the first place. Oh yes, using Canada as a stepping stone or a doormat.

So how can be proven that a person have such intentions when the intentions are changing very often according to external factors?

 

[screech339]

Yes, when I move back to Pakistan, and start taking whatever little social benefits are available to citizens there, you can accuse me of being a CoC. But, given that I have no intention of ever doing so, I fail to see the point of your post.

This illustrates my point of CoC. "Intention". Since torontosm has NO INTENTION of going back to Pakistan, he cannot be accused of Pakistani of Convenience. The moment that he does come back to Pakistan and start using the social benefits, he becomes one (PoC).

 

[alok4best]

The key word with regarding to CoC is "Intent". If someone wants to get Canadian citizenship and takes off to another country with NO INTENTIONS to come back and use Canada health care, subsidized education, including not asking for Canada to bail them out in times of turmoil. In other words, NEVER coming back and use any of Canada's social benefits. BTW, that includes not expecting Canada to help if they get into trouble with the country's law (i.e. Fahmy - Used Egyptian Passport instead of Canadian). Then I believe that person is not considered a CoC. But if this person has NO INTENTION of coming back to Canada to use the benefits, why do they bother getting citizenship in the first place. Oh yes, using Canada as a stepping stone or a doormat.

Exactly. Unfortunately, "Intent" is not something that could be defined easily.
This entire discussion is very similar to provincial nominations.
The provinces nominate people expecting that the beneficiaries intent to reside there and contribute to provincial economy.
However, once the nominees become PR, they can legally go anywhere in Canada and nothing can be done about it.

 

[McClane]

Of course there's no legal definition, but that is no reason to avoid the discussion, seeing as we're not lawyers either. Maybe we're discussing it from an ethical point of view?

I think we all know in our hearts why we want the Canadian citizenship and what our intentions going forward are. We can argue until our fingers bleed, but each one of us knows what they really want. Do you want the paper to immediately run somewhere else, or do you want to live here but are always open to other opportunities?

Personally, I dislike the attitude of people who are always bashing Canada but at the same time they want to be citizens as soon as possible. I see this almost everyday in my French lessons for immigrants.

 

[Politren]

If that person stay entire life in Canada, are we not going to call him CoC. They are the biggest CoC in the universe, not those returning Canadian.

Bingo!!!