Effective date of Bill C24

[MUFC]

Intend to reside itself has no power for rejection, because it is the moral clause.

Failing to maintain residency is a different thing.

I hope it is clear now

 

[screech339]

Intend to reside itself has no power for rejection, because it is the moral clause.

Failing to maintain residency is a different thing.

I hope it is clear now

Awwww sucks I was hoping that the purple sky was actually turning blue, going on your moral clause again. Anyway I can accept your sky is half purple and half blue. But mainly I am happy to know that you admit that "intend to reside" can and does affect the application.

 

[MUFC]

Keeping the residency active is the key.

 

[screech339]

Keeping the residency active is the key.

YES!!!! Keeping residency in Canada is key. That I agree. Even by your own admission, you agree that maintaining residence in Canada is required.

 

[MUFC]

Now we understand each other

YES!!!! Keeping residency in Canada is key. That I agree.

 

[screech339]

Now we understand each other

Yes, glad to know. Nothing moral about the new residency rule, "intend to reside" clause.

 

[MUFC]

YES!!!! Keeping residency in Canada is key. That I agree. Even by your own admission, you agree that maintaining residence in Canada is required.

Yes, because keeping residency is measurable in specific number of days, but intention is not measureable.

 

[screech339]

Yes, because keeping residency is measurable in specific number of days, but intention is not measureable.

Intention can be shown or not, by being measurable by observing the residency in Canada requirement.

 

[MUFC]

And therefore the real rejection factor is actually the keeping residence requirement.

 

[screech339]

And therefore the real rejection factor is actually the keeping residence requirement.

Yes because you didn't observe the "intend to reside" clause by not keeping the residence in Canada requirement.

 

[MUFC]

This is what I am talking about,

The intention itself is not a reason for rejection, the fuel for the rejection is coming from the keeping residency requirement.

It seems that for you, intend to reside and residency requirement are the same thing, but for me they are different

 

[screech339]

It seems that for you, intend to reside and residency requirement are the same thing, but for me they are different

I see that is where you and I differ. As I see both the intend to reside and maintaining residence in Canada applying to the time of submitting application to oath, one and the same thing as clearly specified as written in the law.

I really can't read it any other way. I am afraid that you may be the part of a very very small group of people who think "intend to reside" and "maintaining residency in Canada" are not one and the same.

 

[MUFC]

Here is the difference....

Example with not so fast office which is working with the expected norm speed of less than a year.
The applicant submits his application in August and leave, he is waiting the test outside of Canada , the test is scheduled for June next year and he comes back only for the test and to wait for the oath because it will be short after the test.

That applicant can stay 10 months outside and it is obvious that his intention is not to stay here... technically meanwhile his residency is not lost because presumably he can stay in Canada from the test in June until December.

The intention is not enough for rejection, because the residency is technically is not lost.

The intend to reside clause is not enough for rejection, nevertheless that it is obvious from the profile that this applicant has no intention to stay here anymore.

 

[screech339]

Here is the difference....

Example with not so fast office which is working with the expected norm speed of less than a year.
The applicant submits his application in August and leave, he is waiting the test outside of Canada , the test is scheduled for June next year and he comes back only for the test and to wait for the oath because it will be short after the test.

That applicant can stay 10 months outside and it is obvious that his intention is not to stay here... technically meanwhile his residency is not lost because presumably he can stay in Canada from the test in June until December.

The intention is not enough for rejection, because the residency is technically is not lost.

The intend to reside clause is not enough for rejection, nevertheless that it is obvious from the profile that this applicant has no intention to stay here anymore.

It doesn't matter how long a local office takes to complete the process. The law as written doesn't say "if an local office is fast or slow does the "intend to reside" applies or not.

As it stands, the intend to reside and maintaining residence in Canada are one and the same.

If an applicant happens to have a fast office, the intend to reside or maintaining residence in Canada still applies, just that he/she got lucky in being able to get it done within 6 months after submitting application. That's all nothing more.

You are making an assumption that all citizenship processing after submitting application to time of oath will be done within 6 months. That's quite a goal you have in mind.

 

[MUFC]

It doesn't matter how long a local office takes to complete the process. The law as written doesn't say "if an local office is fast or slow does the "intend to reside" applies or not.

As it stands, the intend to reside and maintaining residence in Canada are one and the same.

If an applicant happens to have a fast office, the intend to reside or maintaining residence in Canada still applies, just that he/she got lucky in being able to get it done within 6 months after submitting application. That's all nothing more.

. You are making an assumption that all citizenship processing after submitting application to time of oath will be done within 6 months. That's quite a goal you have in mind

You love to put words in my mouth which I've never say.
The above example is with the expected less that an year time, and the absence of intention to reside with this people will not be a reason for rejection simply because their residency in not lost.

The intention has no power for rejection itself... the residency has to be lost in order the rejection to be given