"Intent to Reside" - my understanding.

[zardoz]

OK, I'm going to start my day with a small rant, as I'm getting frustrated with this whole "intent to reside" issue.
You can choose to ignore it, or not, as you wish.

The "intent to reside" clause is written in plain, simple, legal English. As a relatively old, native English speaker, I don't have any confusion regarding the meaning or purpose of the wording. It's not at all complex in my opinion. It was written by people who are skilled in writing legislation and almost certainly not by the minister.

It says, completely paraphrased, the following.

When you apply for citizenship you must intend to make Canada your future home. You must continue to intend to make Canada your future home all the time that your application is being processed.

You must not be planning to get your passport "just for convenience" and then abandon Canada as soon as you get it.

It doesn't say that you cannot, in good faith, change your mind after you are granted citizenship. It doesn't say that you cannot travel while waiting for your application to be approved. In fact, it doesn't say a lot of things.

It was included in the legislation as a direct backlash against those that came to Canada with the intention of using the Canadian citizenship and passport as a "safety net" while they carried on life as normal back in some other part of the world, having no intention of making Canada their home.

It provides a legal framework for the refusal to grant citizenship if CIC reasonably believes that the applicant intends to "cut and run". It also provides a legal framework for revocation on the basis of misrepresentation if CIC later discovers that while the application is in process, the applicant is actively seeking a foreign visa or permanent residency elsewhere, having lied on the application declaration. This framework is not currently available to CIC in the existing legislation.

It is for this reason that those applicants are being asked to cancel foreign visas and give up permanent residency of other countries before being granted Canadian citizenship. If they refuse, it's evidence to the CJ and CIC that they intend to abandon Canada as soon as they get the passport, and therefore do not "intend to reside".

Rant over. Have a good day.

 

[CanadianCountry]

Then it becomes even more apt for a legal suit on the grounds that it creates a dual class.

Rocco Galati is in the courts over the jus soli rights of the born citizens.

BC-Carl is been talking to fight over the violation of a Charter rights (speci. mobility rights)

But think, should the nature of any law should promote equality or is to promote discrimination.

Can a law discriminate by nationality which this law in fact does.

OK, I'm going to start my day with a small rant, as I'm getting frustrated with this whole "intent to reside" issue.
You can choose to ignore it, or not, as you wish.

The "intent to reside" clause is written in plain, simple, legal English. As a relatively old, native English speaker, I don't have any confusion regarding the meaning or purpose of the wording. It's not at all complex in my opinion. It was written by people who are skilled in writing legislation and almost certainly not by the minister.

It says, completely paraphrased, the following.

When you apply for citizenship you must intend to make Canada your future home. You must continue to intend to make Canada your future home all the time that your application is being processed.

You must not be planning to get your passport "just for convenience" and then abandon Canada as soon as you get it.

It doesn't say that you cannot, in good faith, change your mind after you are granted citizenship. It doesn't say that you cannot travel while waiting for your application to be approved. In fact, it doesn't say a lot of things.

It was included in the legislation as a direct backlash against those that came to Canada with the intention of using the Canadian citizenship and passport as a "safety net" while they carried on life as normal back in some other part of the world, having no intention of making Canada their home.

It provides a legal framework for the refusal to grant citizenship if CIC reasonably believes that the applicant intends to "cut and run". It also provides a legal framework for revocation on the basis of misrepresentation if CIC later discovers that while the application is in process, the applicant is actively seeking a foreign visa or permanent residency elsewhere, having lied on the application declaration. This framework is not currently available to CIC in the existing legislation.

It is for this reason that those applicants are being asked to cancel foreign visas and give up permanent residency of other countries before being granted Canadian citizenship. If they refuse, it's evidence to the CJ and CIC that they intend to abandon Canada as soon as they get the passport, and therefore do not "intend to reside".

Rant over. Have a good day.

 

[MUFC]

This is the main issue with the way they try to present it to the public... everybody understand it in a different way.

It is not clear and it is confusing.

 

[dpenabill]

zardoz has this right.

The intent to reside clause, however, is still a very big deal. The potential scope of inquiry and inference, based on this requirement, during the application process of course, is huge, really, really huge. Continued ownership of property or business interests abroad, for example, can possibly be perceived as evidence the applicant lacks the requisite intent to continue residing in Canada. At the very least, it opens the door to what is material information, what an applicant can be required to fully disclose, far, far wider, and in turn opens the door to some potentially very broad inferences. A child or partner living abroad, for example, is a major continuing tie abroad, and can lead to inferences about the applicant's intent.

The Rocco Galati litigation has nothing to do with this part of Bill C-24.

There is no hint that this requirement creates a dual class of citizenship.

In terms of whether Canadian law can discriminate based on nationality, of course it can. A Canadian citizen can be convicted many times for very serious criminal offences like drunk driving, drug dealing, even robbery or murder, and never face deportation from Canada. Those whose nationality is other than Canadian can be deported for a single offence, and even those with PR status can have their status revoked and be deported for any offence resulting in imprisonment for more than six months. And Canadian immigration law systematically discriminates based on nationality relative to who is required to have a visa to visit Canada, who does not need a visa.

 

[Mary2009]

zardoz & everyone participating in this thread...

In your opinion(s), would visiting parents during the citizenship application process
be interpreted as applicant not having the intent to reside in Canada?

"the person’s intention must be continuous from the date of his or her application until they have taken the oath of citizenship."
http://bit.ly/1AH6GEk

I know a friend, who is going to apply for citizenship these days...
His parents are originally from Algeria, but they own a family business in France.

Would visiting his parents in France (while application is still in process before the Oath) lead CIC to think that he's not intending to reside in Canada...

I think he's having like a multiple entry visa or something like that, as he's visiting his parents 2 times every year since they landed in Canada...
each visit is around 5 to 20 days maximum.

Thanks all,
Mary

 

[dpenabill]

I should note that I did not mean to portray the probable application of the intent to reside clause so draconian as to elevate every little tie abroad as creating a significant, let alone serious risk the applicant might be denied.

My sense is that the probable application of the intent to reside requirement will have its biggest impact on:

-- the scope of what RQ'd applicants are required to disclose in responding to RQ

-- on applicants with continued status to live or work abroad (U.S. Green card for example, ME work permits)

-- on applicants who go abroad for extended periods while the application is pending, suggesting they are maintaining a residence or business abroad

-- on applicants whose immediate family (dependents) do not reside in Canada (spouse living and working in U.S. for example)

These are not necessarily disqualifying factors. These are factors which are likely to draw more scrutiny from CIC. These are factors which may make it more difficult for the applicant to prove intent to reside, particularly if there are other circumstances further indicating the applicant has stronger ties abroad than in Canada.


Beyond that, of course the range of factors which can be considered is huge. But that does not mean such factors will have much if any impact, unless of course if in total, if in relation to one another, the picture is that of a person whose interest in becoming a Canadian citizen is less about living in Canada and more about the advantages of carrying a Canadian passport.

The vast majority of immigrants inherently have some continuing ties abroad. It is not as if Canada is demanding a PR cut all ties abroad in order to qualify for citizenship.

What this clause will do is to make the quantity, strength, and nature of an applicant's ties abroad relevant, but not a disqualification.

In other words, most typical ongoing ties abroad should not be a problem.

 

[CanadianCountry]

About Rocco Galati's petition, that's what I had mentioned, it's about jus soli rights. It's NOT about the intent to reside.

But a petition based on Charter rights is much more direct, which the BC civil liberties association been talking about. (Which I personally becoming doubtful will ever be filed because of the delay)

Any WIN against this law on ANY topic should be welcome, as it opens the possibility for more petitions.

As far as treating people equally under law, was there any previous case where a naturalized citizen was deported on charges of criminality where crime occurred post naturalization.

About visa requirements for visits to Canada, I have to say that Canadians have to take visa to visit the country I was born. So can it be said that my birth country discriminates against Canadians. Visa free travel is through mutual agreements between countries and not decision of a single country.

Canadian law can discriminate against non-Canadians (inclusive of permanent residents), that was not my question. Question is: can the law discriminate between born and naturalized citizens?

zardoz has this right.

The intent to reside clause, however, is still a very big deal. The potential scope of inquiry and inference, based on this requirement, during the application process of course, is huge, really, really huge. Continued ownership of property or business interests abroad, for example, can possibly be perceived as evidence the applicant lacks the requisite intent to continue residing in Canada. At the very least, it opens the door to what is material information, what an applicant can be required to fully disclose, far, far wider, and in turn opens the door to some potentially very broad inferences. A child or partner living abroad, for example, is a major continuing tie abroad, and can lead to inferences about the applicant's intent.

The Rocco Galati litigation has nothing to do with this part of Bill C-24.

There is no hint that this requirement creates a dual class of citizenship.

In terms of whether Canadian law can discriminate based on nationality, of course it can. A Canadian citizen can be convicted many times for very serious criminal offences like drunk driving, drug dealing, even robbery or murder, and never face deportation from Canada. Those whose nationality is other than Canadian can be deported for a single offence, and even those with PR status can have their status revoked and be deported for any offence resulting in imprisonment for more than six months. And Canadian immigration law systematically discriminates based on nationality relative to who is required to have a visa to visit Canada, who does not need a visa.

 

[dpenabill]

About Rocco Galati's petition, that's what I had mentioned, it's about jus soli rights. It's NOT about the intent to reside.

Canadian law can discriminate against non-Canadians (inclusive of permanent residents), that was not my question. Question is: can the law discriminate between born and naturalized citizens?

But this thread/topic is about the intent to reside provision.

And, as such, is not about whether the law can treat naturalized citizens differently than it does those who are Canadian citizens by birth.

There are multiple other topics where the Galati litigation and related questions are discussed; see, for example, the following:

I read that Toronto based lawyer "Rocco Galati" have challenged Govt on Bill C-24 and matter is with the Canada Supreme Court. Does anybody has any update about this? What was the court's verdict and when C-24 could be implemented?

I would note, though, that my understanding of the revocation of citizenship provisions which now allow the government to revoke citizenship for acts committed after a person has become a citizen do not treat naturalized citizens differently than Canadian citizens by birth. My understanding is that it distinguishes, treats differently, those persons who have more than one citizenship. While the majority of Canadian citizens with citizenship in another country are probably naturalized citizens, a large number of Canadian citizens by birth also have citizenship in other countries and thus fall within the scope of the revocation provisions if, for example, they are convicted for committing acts of terrorism or treason against Canada.

The core of Galati's challenge, as I understand it, is that Parliament does not have the authority or power to take away a person's citizenship. It would require something along the lines of a constitutional amendment, which requires consent from the Provinces. (Revocation for fraud is distinguishable because citizenship obtained by fraud is essentially void, at least voidable, and is thus not really taking away a person's right to citizenship but rather is an adjudication that the individual never legitimately acquired citizenship.)

In other words, my sense is that Galati's challenge is rather narrow, and no matter how successful it is, it will have little or no impact on other provisions in Bill C-24.

In the meantime, of course there will be a lot of litigation in the future regarding various other provisions in Bill C-24. Some issues have already been addressed in the Federal Courts, which I have discussed in other topics (such as the change in procedures pursuant to which the Minister may now summarily terminate an application deemed abandoned).

 

[aed]

zardoz has this right.

Yes. He/she does.

Those whose nationality is other than Canadian can be deported for a single offence, and even those with PR status can have their status revoked and be deported for any offence resulting in imprisonment for more than six months.

It may not be the right thread, but since you mentioned this... Where did you get the information that the dual-nationals can have their Canadian citizenship revoked for a single offence? Unless you meant deportation of the temps (work/study permit holders)? Canadian citizenship can be revoked only in certain cases even according to the new legislation (treason, terrorism etc.) and not just any crime.

 

[dpenabill]

It may not be the right thread, but since you mentioned this... Where did you get the information that the dual-nationals can have their Canadian citizenship revoked for a single offence? Unless you meant deportation of the temps (work/study permit holders)? Canadian citizenship can be revoked only in certain cases even according to the new legislation (treason, terrorism etc.) and not just any crime.

If a person's nationality is ""other than Canadian", that person is neither a Canadian PR nor a Canadian citizen. PRs are "Canadians" as prescribed by IRPA. And of course Canadian citizens are Canadians.

In other words, what I said about being deported for a single offence has nothing to do with PRs, Canadian citizens, including dual-nationals.

What I was referring to, of course, was that under IRPA Foreign Nationals are inadmissible to Canada if they are convicted of an indictable offence (subject to rehabilitation and pardons and such), and thus those who are in Canada (whether as a visitor, temporary worker, student, or such) are subject to be deported if they commit and are convicted of an indictable offence. (Reminder, if an offence is punishable as either an indictable or summary offence, for purposes of IRPA it is an indictable offence, even if it is actually prosecuted as a summary offence. Another reminder: being subject to deportation does not necessarily mean CBSA or Public Safety or CIC will pursue proceedings to deport a person; the government appears to have and to exercise a great deal of discretion in deciding not to prosecute removal proceedings in many cases.)

 

[CanadianCountry]

@dpenabill,
Maybe it's wrong place to ask, but a question: if under IRPA PRs are "Canadians", then can a PR traveller holding foreign passport declare on CBSA Customs declaration under the field asking for nationality that he/she is "Canadian"?

If a person's nationality is ""other than Canadian", that person is neither a Canadian PR nor a Canadian citizen. PRs are "Canadians" as prescribed by IRPA. And of course Canadian citizens are Canadians.

In other words, what I said about being deported for a single offence has nothing to do with PRs, Canadian citizens, including dual-nationals.

What I was referring to, of course, was that under IRPA Foreign Nationals are inadmissible to Canada if they are convicted of an indictable offence (subject to rehabilitation and pardons and such), and thus those who are in Canada (whether as a visitor, temporary worker, student, or such) are subject to be deported if they commit and are convicted of an indictable offence. (Reminder, if an offence is punishable as either an indictable or summary offence, for purposes of IRPA it is an indictable offence, even if it is actually prosecuted as a summary offence. Another reminder: being subject to deportation does not necessarily mean CBSA or Public Safety or CIC will pursue proceedings to deport a person; the government appears to have and to exercise a great deal of discretion in deciding not to prosecute removal proceedings in many cases.)

 

[aed]

What I was referring to, of course...

Almost, but not quite right. That's the thing. It's not "of course". You're talking about the discrimination of other nationalities and comparing them to... Canadians. Visitors or temps or even permanent residents do not hold Canadian citizenship, thus are not Canadians and shouldn't be treated as such. That's nothing new. Many countries deport problematic 'guests'. I see no discrimination here. But, if you wanted to point out that there would be 2 tiers of Canadian citizens (born vs naturalized) who were treated differently, then yes, that's a discrimination.

 

[aed]

@ dpenabill,
Maybe it's wrong place to ask, but a question: if under IRPA PRs are "Canadians", then can a PR traveller holding foreign passport declare on CBSA Customs declaration under the field asking for nationality that he/she is "Canadian"?

NO. PR status and citizenship are 2 different matters. Unless you were granted Canadian citizenship, you cannot call yourself Canadian. You're a landed immigrant till the day of your oath.

 

[CanadianCountry]

Thanks @aed for proving my point. A person is Canadian only after oath.

NO. PR status and citizenship are 2 different matters. Unless you were granted Canadian citizenship, you cannot call yourself Canadian. You're a landed immigrant till the day of your oath.

 

[aed]

Thanks @ aed for proving my point. A person is Canadian only after oath.

...or at birth if jus soli or jus sanguinis apply.