Relative to some observations made in the last couple pages:
Two weeks lead time required:
More than two weeks notice was long, long ago given. There is no requirement that any further advance notice be given before the revised requirements in the
SCCA come into force. Whether the Order fixing the date precedes the date fixed by one day or two weeks or a month or more is entirely at the discretion of the government.
Thus, May 25th is not yet excluded, let alone June 1st. But neither is August 1st or July 17th.
We do not know what the date will be.
Moreover, we do not know how many days before the date the new law takes effect that the Governor in General will issue the Order. One day or ten days or more, we do not know. (I suspect it will be at least a week or two weeks before, but there is
NO guarantee of this.)
By the way, many times, if not most times, a new law takes effect the day it receives Royal Assent, as was the case for parts of the
SCCA . . . which leads to the matter of notice generally.
Unfair lack of notice to those who immigrated prior to change in law:
Basically marlarkey.
The argument that Canada is changing the rules unfairly, without notice, for those who immigrated to Canada prior to . . . well, I am not sure what date this criticism is based upon . . . all this criticism being unfounded since
more than three years NOTICE of the changes was given.
Notice was given in September 2011 that these requirements were going to be changed if the Conservatives won a majority election in the October 2011 election. They won.
Sure, politicians often do not keep their campaign promises. Indeed, these particular changes were promised to be made by the end of 2012 and the legislation did not even get tabled until 2014. But plenty of notice that these changes were coming was given.
Thus, anyone who claims there was an unfair lack of notice these changes were coming is either disingenuous or should be blaming themselves for failing to do their homework before immigrating.
Personal note about this: I initially met the 1095 days of actual presence test in the fall of 2011, and in the forums scores of others adamantly urged me to apply sooner rather than later
precisely because changes were anticipated, that is, precisely because it was anticipated that the residency requirement would very soon be increased, as the Conservative platform had promised, and as Minister Kenney oft suggested, it would be increased and made more strict. Potentially with minimal notice. But I knew that it could not be done without going through the Parliamentary process, so at the least I would have three months
practical notice as to
when any such change would be implemented.
For example, there are probably
dozens of posts in the citizenship forum at immigration.ca, back in the late 2011 through 2012 period, in which various individuals repeatedly advised me to stop procrastinating and apply sooner, not later. (Actually I was waiting, not procrastinating; I did not procrastinate until 2013, but before that I was deliberately waiting based on an assessment of potential issues and risk of RQ at that time.)
In any event: there was plenty of notice these changes were coming well over three years ago. More than enough time to meet the residency requirement and apply for citizenship before the new law takes effect for anyone who was relying on the timeline to become a Canadian citizen. Regarding which, by the way, by 2011 there was already plenty of notice that CIC could take up to four years or so or even more to process a citizenship application . . . so anyone immigrating to Canada in 2011 or later was also on notice that after they came to Canada it could take seven or eight years to become a Canadian citizen. Or longer. (Indeed, by 2011 there were
published cases involving applicants who came to Canada in 2001 or 2002, and who applied for citizenship in 2004 or 2005, who were still not citizens.)
Those complaining about the lack of notice are like someone who buys a used car and then complains it has been driven 99,000 thousand kilometres, when all they had to do was look at the odometer, or at how worn the gas and brake pedals were, to see how extensively the vehicle had been driven.
Didoung said:
I have a question: it's hard to find work in my field. What if I left Canada for professional reasons soon after I get my citizenship? Could they take it back? And also, could the fact that my husband and son were born in Canada help in any way, do you think?
Any input would be greatly appreciated!
Generally, leaving Canada after becoming a citizen does not, will not, have any effect on the validity of one's status as a citizen.
That said, to some extent some clarification is warranted. In particular, it may be said that the answer to this query
depends . . .
First, depends on when the application for citizenship was made. If the application itself has already been made, or is made before the revised requirements in the
SCCA come into force, leaving Canada after taking the oath would have absolutely no impact on the validity of your status as a citizen.
If this is about someone who applies for citizenship after the revised requirements in the
SCCA come into force, someone for whom the intent to continue to reside in Canada requirement applies during the processing of the application for citizenship, even then generally leaving Canada after becoming a citizen, for whatever reason, is of no import, no impact on that person's citizenship status . . .
. . .
but since you qualified this by referring to leaving Canada "SOON after" getting citizenship, the answer depends in part on How soon?
Note, while
how soon? may invite some question, particularly if it is quite soon after taking the oath, the real issue will be rooted in the circumstances and facts, and whether the individual misrepresented
facts (technically an individual's "intent" may be characterized as a fact, but the real focus of inquiry would be on physical facts . . . like did the individual have a job offer or did he enter into a rental agreement for or continue to own a residence abroad).
An individual who has already accepted a job offer abroad, for example, at the time he takes the oath, and who then leaves Canada, within days or weeks after taking the oath, to take that job, sure, it would be apparent this individual committed fraud, made a material misrepresentation to obtain citizenship, and thus is at risk for the government prosecuting him or her for the fraud, revoking citizenship and perhaps imposing a prison term.
Engaging in crime has its risks.
Obviously, the case would be even more obvious if the individual has actually taken a job abroad, returns to Canada briefly for the purpose of taking the oath, and leaves to return to the job abroad.
DUH!
By the way, though, such an individual would have committed fraud, and potentially face criminal prosecution and revocation of citizenship, even if shortly after taking the oath a head-hunter for a Canadian company persuades him to take a job in Canada and the individual decides to return to Canada to live. Ten years down the road, if the government discovers this individual had a job abroad and owned a home abroad and there were other facts and circumstances to clearly show the individual took the oath under false pretenses, the fact he ended up living in Canada would be
NO defense.
The issue, after all, is not where the individual actually lives after becoming a citizen, but whether or not the individual made a material misrepresentation of fact during the processing of the application for citizenship.
One could easily dismiss the practical prospects that Canada would pursue revocation of citizenship for the individual who had a job abroad but after becoming a citizen ended up working and living in Canada. Revocation of this individual's citizenship is not likely to happen. But that is just as likely, if not more so, than anyone will have revocation proceedings initiated against them just because they left Canada to live abroad six months or more after they had become a citizen.
There will be no magic cut-off based on how soon a new citizen leaves Canada. At one extreme, if the individual had a round-trip ticket from abroad, to come to Canada to take the oath and then return
home, that is an obvious
at-risk scenario. At the other extreme, if an individual has been working in Canada for more than a year after becoming a citizen, at a job that individual had for more than a year before becoming a citizen, and a head-hunter from the U.S. then offers a job too good to turn down, and this somewhat new citizen moves abroad for that job, there is no hint this would be an issue, no hint of any problem at all.
