Effective date of Bill C24

[screech339]

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

If the residency has to be lost, it means you had no intention to reside. Hmmmm I don't get how that is difference.

 

[MUFC]

If the residency has to be lost, it means you had no intention to reside. Hmmmm I don't get how that is difference.

The difference is that it is clear that the applicant has no intention to reside, but he will get his citizenship because the residency is not lost yet.

 

[ZingyDNA]

The difference is that it is clear that the applicant has no intention to reside, but he will get his citizenship because the residency is not lost yet.

LOL you two produced 3 pages of back and forth about this. This is just a waste. You can say someone stayed 183 days a year in Canada with no intention to reside, but by CIC's definition that's enough to prove the intention to reside. By CIC's definition, with 182 days a year (that's less than 1/2 year) you lose your intention to reside. Would a day's difference prove anything in someone's intention? Not morally (your argument), but according to the Law, YES (screech's argument).

 

[MUFC]

LOL you two produced 3 pages of back and forth about this. This is just a waste. You can say someone stayed 183 days a year in Canada with no intention to reside, but by CIC's definition that's enough to prove the intention to reside. By CIC's definition, with 182 days a year (that's less than 1/2 year) you lose your intention to reside. Would a day's difference prove anything in someone's intention? Not morally (your argument), but according to the Law, YES (screech's argument).

Very good summary, I am sure that this discussion was useful for the readers.

Cheers

 

[na123]

Let's move on guys.

I am counting the days until late May/Early June. I hope I am able to make, because if not then I have to wait until July 2017.

Good luck to everyone applying.

 

[MUFC]

Why you are so eager for that citizenship this year? If you apply next year you might get the passport faster, because it is expected the processing time to be faster than now.

 

[desigirltoronto84]

Dare I ask someone to summarize the changes being introduced in the BILL C24 (esp. what does “Intend to Stay” clause include) and when will it be introduced for certain ?

I have heard it’s going to June 2015. Is that for certain?

 

[na123]

I can't apply in 2016 cause I was a student, so I will lose that with the new law (pre-pr days), so I can able in 2017.

I don't believe the faster processing time, maybe they will do it initially for publicity but the process will slow down again after sometime. I travel for work to the US from time to time, and applying for the passport now will get it out of my way instead of worrying about it.

Why you are so eager for that citizenship this year? If you apply next year you might get the passport faster, because it is expected the processing time to be faster than now.

 

[MUFC]

Enjoy your live, soon or later you will get that citizenship.
Cheers

 

[MUFC]

I have heard it's going to June 2015. Is that for certain?

It is not certain

 

[YorkFactory]

The difference is that it is clear that the applicant has no intention to reside, but he will get his citizenship because the residency is not lost yet.

You seem to believe that the intent-to-reside clause refers to PR status and not factual residence in Canada. This is not really supported by any evidence.

Based on the wording of C-24 and statements by the minister, if you apply for citizenship and then sell your house (or end your lease) and move to the U.S. while the application is in process, you have run afoul of the intent-to-reside rules, even if you still meet the 2/5 rule to preserve your PR status, and your application will be rejected.

 

[MUFC]

All I am saying is that the new law is not rough enough against the Canadians of convenience.

In the examples I gave it is obvious that in these cases the applicants have no moral intention to stay, but they will get their passports anyway because the residency is not lost

 

[jazibkg]

what is this intention to stay crap I'm hearing about? Say some time in the future when I'm a citizen, and if I get a job offer in the US or UK, I'm supposed to decline those job offers to maintain residential links to Canada? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[screech339]

what is this intention to stay crap I'm hearing about? Say some time in the future when I'm a citizen, and if I get a job offer in the US or UK, I'm supposed to decline those job offers to maintain residential links to Canada? That doesn't make any sense.

The intention to reside only applies to the period when you submit the citizenship application to the time you do your oath and become Canadian. After that, the intend to reside no longer applies.

The purpose of the intend to reside is to stop people from packing up and moving out of Canada after submitting the application, only to come back for test and oath.

Screech339

 

[torontosm]

what is this intention to stay crap I'm hearing about? Say some time in the future when I'm a citizen, and if I get a job offer in the US or UK, I'm supposed to decline those job offers to maintain residential links to Canada? That doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps you should go and read the law instead of formulating opinions based on hearsay, particularly on matters that are so important to you.