Here is why C-24 "Intent to Reside" is Constitutionally Illegal....

[quasar81]

From CARL - Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers: Section 6 of the Charter guarantees to all citizens the right to leave, enter and remain in Canada. Section 15 of the Charter guarantees equality before and under the law, and equal benefit of the law. Naturalized citizens of Canada face a risk of citizenship revocation for leaving Canada, if the Minister forms the opinion that the departure proves that the individual, when applying for citizenship, misrepresented his or her intent to reside in Canada post-citizenship. The chilling effect this will exert on the citizen’s mobility violates s. 6 of the Charter. Because it applies only to naturalized citizens whose country of origin is not Canada, and does not to birthright citizens, it also discriminates on the basis of national origin, contrary to Section 15 of the Charter.

To All Nay Sayers: No need to yell and cry. It is unconstitutional - period.

All who wish to oppose this Intent to Reside C-24 provision: Join the Yahoo group c-24_illegal_provisions c-24_illegal_provisions-subscribe @ yahoogroups.ca I am contacting BCLA and CARL to file a challenge in court. I hope they do. If you wish to support, we may need to help with some legal financial support as well, but not sure yet. Otherwise we may hire some other lawyer probably Mr Cohen, if he wishes

 

[screech339]

The lawyers seems to forget that the intend to reside applies to PR from time of submitting application to day they say their oath. Once they are Canadians, they are free to leave and return. The intend to reside no longer applies once they are Canadians.

In summary, it's all legal, at least to me.

 

[screech339]

One can lose canadian citizenship if it obtained through fraud. So if a refugee fearing for their lives obtain canadian citizenship and went to visit the native country. Their original claim of fearing for their lives becomes invalid. Thus obtained PR through fraud which can lead to losing citizenship since citizenship can only be obtained after getting PR.

 

[asaif]

The lawyers seems to forget that the intend to reside applies to PR from time of submitting application to day they say their oath. Once they are Canadians, they are free to leave and return. The intend to reside no longer applies once they are Canadians.

In summary, it's all legal, at least to me.

Nothing in the law says explicitly that this provision applies only to PR from time of submitting application to day they say their oath. This is just your understanding. The law reads:

"intends, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada,"

which makes it subject to different interpretations. The conservatives could use a clearer language, but they deliberately wanted it to remain vague so they can sell it to their anti-immigrant constituency while escaping potential constitutional objections.

 

[era1521]

One can lose canadian citizenship if it obtained through fraud. So if a refugee fearing for their lives obtain canadian citizenship and went to visit the native country. Their original claim of fearing for their lives becomes invalid. Thus obtained PR through fraud which can lead to losing citizenship since citizenship can only be obtained after getting PR.

Thats a good one! Lol.
They would obtain the PR by fraud; the Citizenship will be legit.

 

[banrad]

I absolutely agree that this provision is open to interpretation, yet CIC Minister provided a clarification on the dubious verbiage on a Senate Committee meeting, by which he as a legislator confirmed the original intent of the law:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk
... needless to say, his dance around the interpretation was clumsy at best

Nothing in the law says explicitly that this provision applies only to PR from time of submitting application to day they say their oath. This is just your understanding. The law reads:

"intends, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada,"

which makes it subject to different interpretations. The conservatives could use a clearer language, but they deliberately wanted it to remain vague so they can sell it to their anti-immigrant constituency while escaping potential constitutional objections.

 

[CanadianCountry]

That dancing around for the reason CIC wants to keep the door open for post-Citizenship revocations based "Intent to Reside" provisions.

I absolutely agree that this provision is open to interpretation, yet CIC Minister provided a clarification on the dubious verbiage on a Senate Committee meeting, by which he as a legislator confirmed the original intent of the law:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk
... needless to say, his dance around the interpretation was clumsy at best

 

[screech339]

Nothing in the law says explicitly that this provision applies only to PR from time of submitting application to day they say their oath. This is just your understanding. The law reads:

"intends, if granted citizenship, to continue to reside in Canada,"

which makes it subject to different interpretations. The conservatives could use a clearer language, but they deliberately wanted it to remain vague so they can sell it to their anti-immigrant constituency while escaping potential constitutional objections.

Read the act again under "intention"

(1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c.1) and 11(1)(d.1), the person’s intention must be continuous from the date of his or her application until they have taken the oath of citizenship

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?doc=C-24&pub=bill&File=30

The law specifically stated that it applies to the period from submitting application to time of oath.

That's pretty clear to me and any competent lawyer.

 

[screech339]

Thats a good one! Lol.
They would obtain the PR by fraud; the Citizenship will be legit.

Don't you means the citizenship will not be legit. Try explaining former nazi people losing citizenship because they lied about their past when they obtained PR. Same applies to refugees going back to native countries. Their original argument that they are afraid for their lives becomes invalid the moment they return to their home country. They obtained PR through fraud and thus can lose their citizenship as well.

 

[asaif]

Don't you means the citizenship will not be legit. Try explaining former nazi people losing citizenship because they lied about their past when they obtained PR. Same applies to refugees going back to native countries. Their original argument that they are afraid for their lives becomes invalid the moment they return to their home country. They obtained PR through fraud and thus can lose their citizenship as well.

You are joking ... right?

There are at least two counter-arguments that refute yours: 1) Situation of countries change over time, and a country that used to be dangerous at some point may become safe now (look at Germany for the Jews before WWII and now). and 2) A person who was endangered when holding only his native citizenship may feels safer with the Canadian passport is in his/her hand. It doesn't take a lawyer to knock down this logic.

 

[dbss]

I think the question here is of supreme power that the government will get with this bill. I definitely agree that people getting citizenship through fraudulent methods should be stripped of citizenship.

In other scenarios, say someone gets their citizenship and then they decide to settle in another country, what is keeping the government from stripping them from the citizenship because government can always say it was not the applicant's intent to stay in Canada. Now we can argue all we want about this matter that no, it just does not happen like that out of the blue but what guarantees are there. Nobody's rights are violated out of the blue but it happens (that's why we have a Charter of Rights). It depends on the person you are working with if it comes to that stage and the vagueness in the language is open to interpretation has already been established.

Let me put it another perspective as well. Right now if the government wants to strip your citizenship, they have to go through the court but once this bill passes the onus will be on the citizen to prove that his citizenship should not be taken away from him which will lead to a court battle. What happens to the rights of that resident during the period of the court battle, are they still a citizen and enjoy all the benefits of citizen etc.? Can the citizen afford to pay for the court battle?

If the government wants to play the card of the citizenship not being transferred on and on to the next generations, there is already a law that citizenship will only be passed to first generation.

 

[asaif]

Read the act again under "intention"

(1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c.1) and 11(1)(d.1), the person's intention must be continuous from the date of his or her application until they have taken the oath of citizenship

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?doc=C-24&pub=bill&File=30

The law specifically stated that it applies to the period from submitting application to time of oath.

That's pretty clear to me and any competent lawyer.

The law talks about: the person's "intention" not "residency". So even if the applicant stays in Canada between application and oath, the government can always argue that he lied about his intention if he leaves Canada after acquiring the citizenship. The law is phrased such that it keeps the door open for revoking citizenship based on the government's perception of the person's "intentions" during the application phase. A more clear-cut version would require the applicant to "maintain continuous residency in Canada between application and oath", a verifiable fact, rather than talking about his "intention" which can't be verified definitely. But a clearer version will tie the government's hand once the applicant gets the citizenship, which is not Mr. Harper wants.

 

[asaif]

I think the question here is of supreme power that the government will get with this bill. I definitely agree that people getting citizenship through fraudulent methods should be stripped of citizenship.

In other scenarios, say someone gets their citizenship and then they decide to settle in another country, what is keeping the government from stripping them from the citizenship because government can always say it was not the applicant's intent to stay in Canada. Now we can argue all we want about this matter that no, it just does not happen like that out of the blue but what guarantees are there. Nobody's rights are violated out of the blue but it happens (that's why we have a Charter of Rights). It depends on the person you are working with if it comes to that stage and the vagueness in the language is open to interpretation has already been established.

Let me put it another perspective as well. Right now if the government wants to strip your citizenship, they have to go through the court but once this bill passes the onus will be on the citizen to prove that his citizenship should not be taken away from him which will lead to a court battle. What happens to the rights of that resident during the period of the court battle, are they still a citizen and enjoy all the benefits of citizen etc.? Can the citizen afford to pay for the court battle?

If the government wants to play the card of the citizenship not being transferred on and on to the next generations, there is already a law that citizenship will only be passed to first generation.

+1

 

[CanadianCountry]

Proving "Intent" is a subjective thing. Citizenship applicant can be staying in Canada till oath, but CIC can still doubt intent.

If a person cannot afford to pay for court battle, then lose the citizenship. Rich people can still payup legal costs. Poor suffer always.

Damage is already done, the Bill is a law.

I think the question here is of supreme power that the government will get with this bill. I definitely agree that people getting citizenship through fraudulent methods should be stripped of citizenship.

In other scenarios, say someone gets their citizenship and then they decide to settle in another country, what is keeping the government from stripping them from the citizenship because government can always say it was not the applicant's intent to stay in Canada. Now we can argue all we want about this matter that no, it just does not happen like that out of the blue but what guarantees are there. Nobody's rights are violated out of the blue but it happens (that's why we have a Charter of Rights). It depends on the person you are working with if it comes to that stage and the vagueness in the language is open to interpretation has already been established.

Let me put it another perspective as well. Right now if the government wants to strip your citizenship, they have to go through the court but once this bill passes the onus will be on the citizen to prove that his citizenship should not be taken away from him which will lead to a court battle. What happens to the rights of that resident during the period of the court battle, are they still a citizen and enjoy all the benefits of citizen etc.? Can the citizen afford to pay for the court battle?

If the government wants to play the card of the citizenship not being transferred on and on to the next generations, there is already a law that citizenship will only be passed to first generation.

 

[screech339]

You are joking ... right?

There are at least two counter-arguments that refute yours: 1) Situation of countries change over time, and a country that used to be dangerous at some point may become safe now (look at Germany for the Jews before WWII and now). and 2) A person who was endangered when holding only his native citizenship may feels safer with the Canadian passport is in his/her hand. It doesn't take a lawyer to knock down this logic.

Take blood feud for example. Blood feud can last for generations despite changes to the country government for the better years later. So does a person who filed for refugee due to blood feud is allowed to go back as a Canadian or even PR. The threat of their life is still there the moment they go back. If the blood feud is truly legit, they basically cannot go back to home country ever. The moment they go back, their claim of blood feud becomes invalid regardless if they feel safer as Canadian.

I guess it would be hard for a lawyer to knock this logic down?