Intend to Reside/stay EVEN after getting citizenship

[Swede]

Umm, no it's not.

Know what you're talking about. In the case of intent to stay in the country, the government can revoke your citizenship later on if it can prove you misrepresented your intent when you applied. They'll claim this is covered under fraud.

As for your oath to the Queen, I daresay your loyalty to Queen Elizabeth will never be tested in your lifetime. It's not like you can expect to be asked to go fight some distant war in the middle East in the name of the Queen. By the way, ... WOULD YOU get killed for the Queen of England? Be honest now ... you're about to take an oath that implies you should.

According to the CIC press release, you will have to declare your intent to reside in Canada in order to be granted citizenship. As a citizen you have the right to come and go as you please, and I don't think CIC regulations trump the charter of rights and freedoms. There is no way CIC could prove what you intended to do as you applied for citizenship and I very much doubt that they'd be allowed to use their idea of your intentions as a basis for a fraud case against you.

Ok ...lets analyze the other implications of this act.In my personal view,in this way Canadian government is itself downgrading its citizenship and immigration.Forget about people who have have already immigrated to Canada ,did not have any indication of that type of rule ,when they came to Canada,so they might accept it.However,what about the new applicants who have yet not applied for PR or still in the process ?

Do you think after this new bill the BRIGHTEST AND THE BEST will come to live in a country which limits their movements after getting citizenship....For sure NO ! In this way Canada would be attracting just the Refugees or only those immigrants which are not accepted anywhere else.

No one is limiting anyone's movement, all that the new applicants are asked is to acknowledge the fact that you're expected to commit to Canada as your new home if you are granted citizenship.

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

I swear (or affirm)
That I will be faithful
And bear true allegiance
To Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second
Queen of Canada
Her Heirs and Successors
And that I will faithfully observe
The laws of Canada
And fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

You swear yourself to the queen, but I don't think CIC could claim fraud if it turns out you're a republican.

 

[marcus66502]

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

It almost sounds like an oath to become a British citizen. Other than a couple of appearances of the word Canada, all references of loyalty are to the queen of England. And this for a country that claims to be independent. What a joke!

Don't anyone dare start delving into how canada is linked to britain historically and how the queen represents canada blah blah blah. I've heard all that bull*censored word* before and I don't care for it.

 

[marcus66502]

Are you a Canadian citizenship?

That's funny. That is Really funny!! LOL
It's actually hilarious

Yea, you belong in Canada dear.

 

[pompi]

not fair to do that.

Can you pls explain the reason for NO. Except you are already a citizen and this law isn't affecting you anyway!

 

[chakrab]

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!!

yes i do support the so called two class of citizens because thats the law in every country of the world. show me a country which doesn't have a single different clause for natural born vs naturalized citizen and i will accept i am wrong.

for god sake, stop the fear mongering. nothing has happened yet and we are already fighting amongst ourselves. i have no issues signing the document nor do any friends that i know of. you can't just live by the negativity that you fear in your future.

 

[pompi]

yes i do support the so called two class of citizens because thats the law in every country of the world. show me a country which doesn't have a single different clause for natural born vs naturalized citizen and i will accept i am wrong.

i can understand the difference exists for two tier citizenship one for natural born and other naturalized.

But with this law it shall create 3 tier a)natural born b)naturalized before this law c)naturalized after this law

category C has the least advantage

 

[chakrab]

i can understand the difference exists for two tier citizenship one for natural born and other naturalized.

But with this law it shall create 3 tier a)natural born b)naturalized before this law c)naturalized after this law

category C has the least advantage

that's where i agree with you. it shouldn't be different for B and C. I have no idea why some people are bringing in A to the equation, as it is a moot point.

but think with a clear mind. if someone has asked you while applying for work permit, PR or citizenship, "do you plan to stay in canada?", do you just say "yes" or do you say "till i find a better life somewhere else". the "intend to stay" question is just like that. i don't see anywhere in the bill where it says one can't leave canada to work anywhere else or can't go for vacation. i feel that it's the fear in one's mind caused by the anxiety of the applications which is making one to think the worst.

 

[chakrab]

It almost sounds like an oath to become a British citizen. Other than a couple of appearances of the word Canada, all references of loyalty are to the queen of England. And this for a country that claims to be independent. What a joke!

Don't anyone dare start delving into how canada is linked to britain historically and how the queen represents canada blah blah blah. I've heard all that bull*censored word* before and I don't care for it.

queen elizabeth is the queen of britain, canada, australia, new zealand, bahamas, etc (all independently). your point here shows your ignorance of canadian politics and history. when is the canadian independence day btw?

if you are so much against the clause, don't sign it

 

[marcus66502]

queen elizabeth is the queen of britain, canada, australia, new zealand, bahamas, etc (all independently). your point here shows your ignorance of canadian politics and history. when is the canadian independence day btw?

if you are so much against the clause, don't sign it

I don't think you want to bet your rootie patooties that you'll do better than me in a contest of Canadian politics and history.

There is no Canadian independence day, because there is no Canadian independence. You at least got THAT right about Canada, if nothing else. Laws of Canada require royal assent (a fancy phrase for the consent of queen Elizabeth). It's not enough for the parliament to approve a bill. The queen has final say, which means that in theory she could refuse to give consent to any passed bill, preventing it from becoming law. Hence, there is no real independence.

Queen Elizabeth is the queen of England. She was born and resides in the UK, and she was coronized to the throne of the British monarch, never to any Canadian throne (if there exists a Canadian throne at all). The government of Canada can say she's the queen of Canada and a citizen of Canada all day long for all I care. That doesn't make Queen Elizabeth any more Canadian than a rock on the Grand Canyon.

This is the beauty of freedom. I have the right to speak out my opinions when they don't agree with yours. If you don't like what I have to say, you can stop reading my posts any time now. That's also an option, and it should be too hard.

 

[nguyentu2001]

queen elizabeth is the queen of britain, canada, australia, new zealand, bahamas, etc (all independently). your point here shows your ignorance of canadian politics and history. when is the canadian independence day btw?

if you are so much against the clause, don't sign it

Please try not to insult people when you are proving your point. That would be nice!

 

[rajmalhotra7]

queen elizabeth is the queen of britain, canada, australia, new zealand, bahamas, etc (all independently). your point here shows your ignorance of canadian politics and history. when is the canadian independence day btw?

if you are so much against the clause, don't sign it

If UK did not protect Canada during 1700's and 1800's, Canada would not have been in existence and USA would have invaded Canada long ago. War of 1812 is an example of it. USA fought 3 brief wars to grab Toronto, but failed. You are sitting in Canada because of UK's protection 200-300 years ago.

UK said on July 01, 1867 that you are a nation. On July 01 every year, Canada celebrates Happy Birthday as a birth of a nation. There is no independence day of Canada. In 1867, Queen Victoria was the queen of UK. Canada highly regards her and have a stat holiday in her name every year (Victoria Day). It is not a stat holiday in UK, but in Canada.

 

[pompi]

If UK did not protect Canada during 1700's and 1800's, Canada would not have been in existence and USA would have invaded Canada long ago. War of 1812 is an example of it. USA fought 3 brief wars to grab Toronto, but failed. You are sitting in Canada because of UK's protection 200-300 years ago.

UK said on July 01, 1867 that you are a nation. On July 01 every year, Canada celebrates Happy Birthday as a birth of a nation. There is no independence day of Canada. In 1867, Queen Victoria was the queen of UK. Canada highly regards her and have a stat holiday in her name every year (Victoria Day). It is not a stat holiday in UK, but in Canada.

hey guys, dont divert attention...stay on subject pls....any thoughts on impact of this clause on current PRs and any relevant information is very much welcome!....also, lets exclude born citizens and queen out of discussion. Thx

 

[marcus66502]

Please try not to insult people when you are proving your point. That would be nice!

Insult is what people usually resort to in order to protect their ego when they have no real argument.

He has no argument. The queen of England was never coronized as the the queen of Canada. To be technical, there is no Canadian throne. No such thing exists, never has. The fact that the government of Canada issues arbitrary decrees that keep saying she's the queen of Canada and a citizen of Canada doesn't change anything. I suppose the Minister can go around the world and wave his magic stick at the queen of England or any other person for that matter and say "I pronounce you Canadian" but that's just an abuse of power and doesn't make people Canadian in any way shape or form. The queen of England was not born in Canada and was never naturalized as a citizen of Canada in accordance with the Canadian law that applies to you, me, and anyone else.

 

[newtone]

If UK did not protect Canada during 1700's and 1800's, Canada would not have been in existence and USA would have invaded Canada long ago. War of 1812 is an example of it. USA fought 3 brief wars to grab Toronto, but failed. You are sitting in Canada because of UK's protection 200-300 years ago.

UK said on July 01, 1867 that you are a nation. On July 01 every year, Canada celebrates Happy Birthday as a birth of a nation. There is no independence day of Canada. In 1867, Queen Victoria was the queen of UK. Canada highly regards her and have a stat holiday in her name every year (Victoria Day). It is not a stat holiday in UK, but in Canada.

Well atleast this way Canadians would not have to go south of the border for shopping. Day to day living expenses would be much cheaper

 

[nguyentu2001]

hey guys, dont divert attention...stay on subject pls....any thoughts on impact of this clause on current PRs and any relevant information is very much welcome!....also, lets exclude born citizens and queen out of discussion. Thx

Please let them discuss. Some discussions have made this topic quite interesting. Thoughts on impact of this clause on current PRs are all assumption so If I were you, I would not rely on it too much. Read and enjoy the fun of this instead.

Argument creates such good entertainment here.