Intend to Reside/stay EVEN after getting citizenship

[keesio]

This topic has been beaten to death. In my opinion, and many others, this is probably the least important part of the bill because it is all for show. In reality, the government cannot do anything if you decide to leave afterwards. Very much like immigrants who come via PNP. It is a PR move to make themselves look good to voters who complain about "Canadians of Convenience", which seems to be a hot topic not just here but around the world.

 

[nguyentu2001]

Aww c'mon buddy, get real!

"BIGHTEST AND BEST" is a worn-out cliche nowadays. This country (and many others), admits the people who can't get into the US and thus don't have a choice. You can't be so naive as to take official media hype at face value.

This is nothing unique to immigration. It's like that with university admissions. Can't get into Harvard? You're gonna take your second best choice, ... and so on.

Immigrants from dirt poor countries don't immigrate to Canada because PR status leads to citizenship. Most of them wouldn't have a clue what the citizenship requirements are when they apply to immigrate. They come here first and foremost for the economic opportunities. Like one of my professors used to say "You can gripe and philosophize all day long, but at the end of day, it's economics that dictates people's actions." Truth be told, Canada could be a lot worse and people from the third world would still be willing to come here.

"Immigrants from dirt poor countries don't immigrate to Canada because PR status leads to citizenship" you seem so sure representing others from "poor countries". Remember many of us came as international students and skilled workers...cant be so sure about what we know and now know...please don't assume from your own case.

Anyway, relax.....why so serious! ^_^

 

[nguyentu2001]

We can debate the intent to reside as much as we want but at the end of the day have to realize that the Govt grants citizenship to naturlized citizens. It can decide what conditions need to be met before citizenship is granted and can change these requirements any time they see fit.

Natural Born Citizens and Naturalized Citizens can never be the same. In extreme cases, the govt can decide to revoke citizenship for all naturlized citizens and send them packing to whatever country the belong to. This cannot be done with Natural Born Citizens. According to International law, a person cannot be left stateless. By law, any country can revoke your citizenship except your country of citizenship at birth. They are legally obligated to give you citizenship and all of the benefits associated with it, no matter what

Yes, absolutely agree with you ! Thank you!

This debate can go on forever under this forum and the outcome of the debate here would go nowhere. Some people seem too serious and sensitive about this topic. ^_^
Also it is the reason why I like reading this topic, so entertaining!

 

[nguyentu2001]

Aww c'mon buddy, get real!

"BIGHTEST AND BEST" is a worn-out cliche nowadays. This country (and many others), admits the people who can't get into the US and thus don't have a choice. You can't be so naive as to take official media hype at face value.

This is nothing unique to immigration. It's like that with university admissions. Can't get into Harvard? You're gonna take your second best choice, ... and so on.

Immigrants from dirt poor countries don't immigrate to Canada because PR status leads to citizenship. Most of them wouldn't have a clue what the citizenship requirements are when they apply to immigrate. They come here first and foremost for the economic opportunities. Like one of my professors used to say "You can gripe and philosophize all day long, but at the end of day, it's economics that dictates people's actions." Truth be told, Canada could be a lot worse and people from the third world would still be willing to come here.

US US US...i think you should apply to immigrate to the US for citizenship...that would solve all of your pain toward the new bill! Win-Win situation.

 

[marcus66502]

You are not taking the oath to the Queen, per se. I know you swear an oath to the Queen, her heirs and sucessors but in this context the Queen and Canada are interchangeable. She belongs to Canada and Canada belongs to her. So in essence you are swearing to protect Canada.

Still haven't answered my question: would you die in war for Queen Elizabeth? It's a fair question. You're swearing loyalty to her.

The Queen and Canada are interchangeable? That's your opinion. Queen Elizabeth is the Queen of England. She is a Canadian citizen just by decree of the Government of Canada, not because she qualifies to be a citizen according the Canadian law that applies to everyone else.

I wonder how many native born Canadians would be willing to go fight wars in her name if they were conscripted. A lot of people born in Canada say they're loyal to her but that's just talk until they're put to the test. It's easy to talk the talk, but can they walk the walk?

 

[marcus66502]

This topic has been beaten to death. In my opinion, and many others, this is probably the least important part of the bill because it is all for show. In reality, the government cannot do anything if you decide to leave afterwards.

Is that so?? How about initiating revocation proceedings on grounds of fraud? Of course, you'll have the right to challenge the Minister's move in court, but he can claim misrepresentation of intent to reside in Canada when you applied, and citing your departure from Canada as evidence of it.

And you know what? I'm afraid the courts might just buy it. There is no objective standard of proof here. It just depends on which way the judges want to rule. The Minister will move against you because he has nothing to lose: if he loses in court, he is no worse off than if he had never taken action against you in the first place. Why wouldn't the Minister roll the dice and let the courts decide?

This is not criminal court we're talking about. The standard of proof is not objective and the assertions don't have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Plans to move out of Canada today are not conclusive evidence that you're trying to make your permanent home elsewhere for the rest of your life. To put it bluntly, I just don't like the idea of the Minister having the power to just waltz into Federal Court, wave some piece of paper that says I accepted a job offer from Harvard, and claim that he has met the burden of proof for a court declaration of misrepresentation of intent. This bill gives the Minister the authority to do just that.

It's not that I'm worried that the Minister is going to spend his time going on a witch hunt on ordinary citizens. My point is, as long as he has authority to act in this way, the possibility of this happening to anyone is there and it's hard for anyone to feel secure in their well-earned citizenship.

Watch out! You could come back from a one-year study abroad and find a letter in your mail stating that the minister is moving to revoke your citizenship for misrepresentation of intent.

 

[keesio]

Is that so?? How about initiating revocation proceedings on grounds of fraud? Of course, you'll have the right to challenge the Minister's move in court, but he can claim misrepresentation of intent to reside in Canada when you applied, and citing your departure from Canada as evidence of it.

Until I see the first case of someone who came to Canada via PNP getting their PR card revoked because of misrepresentation (leaving the province he/she was supposed to settle in), I will stick by the belief that this is strictly a PR move only.

 

[marcus66502]

Until I see the first case of someone who came to Canada via PNP getting their PR card revoked because of misrepresentation (leaving the province he/she was supposed to settle in), I will stick by the belief that this is strictly a PR move only.

Again, we're talking about the Minister's powers here, not about whether he's actually going to use those powers in practice. I was addressing your comment that there is nothing the government can do after you get citizenship and leave. Well no, not exactly. If this bill passes, there is quite a lot the government will be able to do. Truth be told, with every bill like this, the executive branch of the government tries to grab more and more power, at our expense. And like another poster at another forum has said: if they have the power, they will one day use it against "inconvenient citizens", you know ... dissidents, political activists, whistle blowers etc.

And I have to say it again, I don't like the idea of being put in the scary position of having to appear in federal court to defend my citizenship status because of something as simple as, say, forgetting to file tax returns for a couple of years. This bill opens the door to a lot of abuse on the part of the Minister.

 

[pompi]

Again, we're talking about the Minister's powers here, not about whether he's actually going to use those powers in practice. I was addressing your comment that there is nothing the government can do after you get citizenship and leave. Well no, not exactly. If this bill passes, there is quite a lot the government will be able to do. Truth be told, with every bill like this, the executive branch of the government tries to grab more and more power, at our expense. And like another poster at another forum has said: if they have the power, they will one day use it against "inconvenient citizens", you know ... dissidents, political activists, whistle blowers etc.

And I have to say it again, I don't like the idea of being put in the scary position of having to appear in federal court to defend my citizenship status because of something as simple as, say, forgetting to file tax returns for a couple of years. This bill opens the door to a lot of abuse on the part of the Minister.

Agreed and I would say do include this clause for the people who are newly applying to PR instead of existing holders. By which, new applicants can take a decision considering this 'conditional reward' after all hardships for years as PR

 

[nguyentu2001]

Agreed and I would say do include this clause for the people who are newly applying to PR instead of existing holders. By which, new applicants can take a decision considering this 'conditional reward' after all hardships for years as PR

not fair to do that.

 

[marcus66502]

not fair to do that.

Oh I think it's very fair to do that. Prospective immigrants should know what they're getting themselves into before they spend a fortune and uproot themselves to move to Canada. They should be aware that the citizenship they'll be applying for after the required residence period comes with conditions and strings and therefore is not full citizenship.

 

[nguyentu2001]

Oh I think it's very fair to do that. Prospective immigrants should know what they're getting themselves into before they spend a fortune and uproot themselves to move to Canada. They should be aware that the citizenship they'll be applying for after the required residence period comes with conditions and strings and therefore is not full citizenship.

ok sure! ;D
we need more people like you here. make the topic much more interesting.
Are you a Canadian citizenship?
When you applied, did you have experience any RQ? Thanks

 

[vic48912]

many countries have the right to revoke citizenship for naturalized citizens if they are caught to have cheated or lied during the process.

Individual circumstance decide their long term plans, how does that translate to cheating or lies in filling Canada citizenship application? If i get a good paying job tomorrow in Geneva with UN, does that mean I have to give it up because the government force me, under duress to sign undertaking that I will always reside in Canada.... Lie? Cheating? How did those words even get into this conversation

 

[vic48912]

i think you are making it sound very extreme. if your kids are gone for certain years, it's not going to revoke their citizenship. but yes if you kids settle in UK, plan to work there their whole life and then expect to come back to canada when 65, they may have an issue doing it.

Going by your logic it seem you support two class of citizens which is what the government is trying to create with this bill....going by your logic The government will not have problem with a kid born here with similar circumstance studying in UK, but will have issues with a naturalized Canadian kid!!

 

[vic48912]

What they're trying to do is to shame those who would use Canadian citizenship only as a means to get a "better" passport and/or an easy in to the USA.

Regardless of whether or not you think this is fair or warranted, they can not take your citizenship away even if you take your new passport and run off with it to the Old Country for the rest of your life, so there is no need to worry.

Declaring your intent to stay in the country is a gesture just like swearing your oath to the Queen.

Have you seen the wording of the oath? Just curious.