Major problems associated with BILL C-24

[screech339]

Personally, the only problem I see with this bill is the 4/6 rule. All other things don't matter to me such as language, dual citizen is not allowed in my country, (Indian P.P. doesn't have much of a value anyways), Im fine with intent to reside, as I am well settled here. Even things like language : I have a score of 9 in IELTS and have a Canadian accent.

I do realize there might be some applicants who might have trouble with English skills, intent to reside, it is sad and I feel sorry for them. The requirements are harsher for them.

What's the problem with the 4/6 rule? You only need to stay in Canada a little longer. Besides it is still generous comparing to other countries that requires at least 5 CONTINOUS years (no break) or longer to qualify for citizenship.

 

[SinghLovCan]

What's the problem with the 4/6 rule? You only need to stay in Canada a little longer. Besides it is still generous comparing to other countries that requires at least 5 CONTINOUS years (no break) or longer to qualify for citizenship.

Yes Screech , I do agree with you. Actually I don't have to stay any longer as I already qualify before the new rules come into effect. I was just speaking on behalf of others who will fall into the new category, but still like you said its better than other countries. I think most countries (Australia, USA) you can get your citizenship between 3-5 years. I know in Switzerland you have to stay 10-13 years. Not sure how other countries go about it.

The only people who seem to be most worried about the revocation thing are the people who want to Sharia-rize the whole world. Saudi is a Sharia country, so they can stay there. LOL

 

[Makool]

Hi there,

I have a question I work for a Seattle based company but myself I'm based in Vancouver, the company is offering me a position in Seattle, question is, I'm naturalized Canadian now, if I take this offer am I in danger to lose my citizenship? Someone told me that I will lose it based on this new bill, can anyone tell me more about it?

Also I know someone who came to Canada 10 years ago as a refugee, he is a Canadian citizen now, he went back to His country for vacations but when he came back to Vancouver his passport was taken from him, CBSA is claiming that he may lose his citizenship due to the fact that he was suppose to stay in Canada, any opinion on this case?

Thanks in advance!!

 

[jhjeppe]

I don't see any major problems with it.

The part that everyone is making a big fuss over the bill is the removal of Canadian citizenship clause. What these people are forgetting is that it can only be done if you are convicted of terrorism AND hold DUAL citizenship.

The other issue is the "intend to reside" clause. This only applies to those who apply for canadian citizenship. The intend to resides applies to the period between submitting your application to the day you become Canadian. The purpose of the clause is to make the PR actually stay in Canada while they wait to be become Canadian. This is to prevent PR from taking off and leaving Canada after submitting the application while waiting for citizenship. They can stay outside Canada up to 3 years while waiting for citizenship. To me that doesn't make sense. You do want Canada to be your home country or not? To leave Canada while waiting for citizenship tells me that the PR only want to be Canadian of Convenient.

Screech339

Sorry, you are misinformed...

First of all, terrorism is a very wide term... You can be convicted and labeled a terrorist for speaking out against the government, such as criticizing the government for not doing enough for the environment.

secondly, you do not have to hold dual citizenship. You only have to have the ability to OBTAIN dual citizenship in order for your Canadian Citizenship to be removed and you can be exiled to the third world. Now... this is basically anyone in Canada, this means if your parent's parents were born here... you can be removed.

Now... Here's the kicker!!! You do not have to be convicted of anything! In fact, there will be no court cases either.... actually you don't even have to be charged with anything, just the suspicion is enough for the minister of Citizenship and immigration to issue a removal order, that simply means that someone who doesn't really like you, can complain about you to the right person, call you a terrorist and there you go.... you lose your citizenship. it's really that easy to lose...

Now, to get to the "intent to reside" clause.... First go and watch this video of Minister Chris Alexander fumbling through questions that he has no knowledge of...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk&list=FLGuXdo3wl_dPRTcDl-a_CtQ&index=21

See that? He doesn't even know what the fuck he is talking about... He's like a stuck record... repeating the same $hit over and over... Even though it is being pointed out to him that's not what the bill says.... I can't believe that anyone can be this ignorant.

These laws are plain and simple BS... Here's what it's meant to do... It's to get rid of people who do not bear allegiance to the conservative party, people who have different views than them, this way, they will stay in power and never lose an election... easy enough to exile people to a place where you have never been to or know nothing about... Sounds pretty medieval doesn't it? and then they just slap the word terrorism on it and the public believes anything that is associated with terrorism when in reality they don't even know or understand what terrorism is... The word terrorism in the bill does not mean terrorism... it means "people who do not agree with us or criticize us for the way we conduct politics"

But hey... I guess this is just my opinion eh? When the time comes.... and it will, everyone will see and start believing what I have said all along... until that time comes I will wait quietly... Seriously thinking of becoming a sovereign citizen of the world... that way, they can't touch me with a 10 foot pole...
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-sovereign-citizen-movement-growing-officials-warn-1.1436905

I mean... think about it for just a minute.... when you do, you will realize that it all makes just too much sense and that I am speaking the truth...

 

[SinghLovCan]

Sorry, you are misinformed...

First of all, terrorism is a very wide term... You can be convicted and labeled a terrorist for speaking out against the government, such as criticizing the government for not doing enough for the environment.

secondly, you do not have to hold dual citizenship. You only have to have the ability to OBTAIN dual citizenship in order for your Canadian Citizenship to be removed and you can be exiled to the third world. Now... this is basically anyone in Canada, this means if your parent's parents were born here... you can be removed.

Now... Here's the kicker!!! You do not have to be convicted of anything! In fact, there will be no court cases either.... actually you don't even have to be charged with anything, just the suspicion is enough for the minister of Citizenship and immigration to issue a removal order, that simply means that someone who doesn't really like you, can complain about you to the right person, call you a terrorist and there you go.... you lose your citizenship. it's really that easy to lose...

Now, to get to the "intent to reside" clause.... First go and watch this video of Minister Chris Alexander fumbling through questions that he has no knowledge of...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk&list=FLGuXdo3wl_dPRTcDl-a_CtQ&index=21

See that? He doesn't even know what the *censored word* he is talking about... He's like a stuck record... repeating the same $hit over and over... Even though it is being pointed out to him that's not what the bill says.... I can't believe that anyone can be this ignorant.

These laws are plain and simple BS... Here's what it's meant to do... It's to get rid of people who do not bear allegiance to the conservative party, people who have different views than them, this way, they will stay in power and never lose an election... easy enough to exile people to a place where you have never been to or know nothing about... Sounds pretty medieval doesn't it? and then they just slap the word terrorism on it and the public believes anything that is associated with terrorism when in reality they don't even know or understand what terrorism is... The word terrorism in the bill does not mean terrorism... it means "people who do not agree with us or criticize us for the way we conduct politics"

But hey... I guess this is just my opinion eh? When the time comes.... and it will, everyone will see and start believing what I have said all along... until that time comes I will wait quietly... Seriously thinking of becoming a sovereign citizen of the world... that way, they can't touch me with a 10 foot pole...
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-sovereign-citizen-movement-growing-officials-warn-1.1436905

I mean... think about it for just a minute.... when you do, you will realize that it all makes just too much sense and that I am speaking the truth...

The world is changing into something very different. Thanks for the informative post

 

[screech339]

Sorry, you are misinformed...

First of all, terrorism is a very wide term... You can be convicted and labeled a terrorist for speaking out against the government, such as criticizing the government for not doing enough for the environment.

secondly, you do not have to hold dual citizenship. You only have to have the ability to OBTAIN dual citizenship in order for your Canadian Citizenship to be removed and you can be exiled to the third world. Now... this is basically anyone in Canada, this means if your parent's parents were born here... you can be removed.

You can't be convicted of being a terrorist by speaking out against the government. That is called Freedom of Speech. However if you act on it by blowing up a pipeline on behalf of environmental fanatics then you can be labeled a environmental terrorist. After all you caused danger to people's lives.

Burden of proof
(2) If an instrument referred to in subsection (1) prohibits the deprivation of citizenship that would render a person stateless, a person who claims that subsection 10(2) or 10.1(2) would operate in the manner described in subsection (1) must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the person is not a citizen of any country of which the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe the person is a citizen.

The statement says that the person must prove to the minister that he/she cannot obtain another citizenship if the minister believe you have dual citizenship. Take for example. A Canadian born parent had a child in US. The child is American but didn't bother to register the child as Canadian. The child is also Canadian by law as well. Just didn't bother to go about to get it. This is what the burden of proof is for. An convicted terrorist may have legally obtained another citizenship by law, similar to Canadian citizenship law. So even though the person believed he/she holds single citizenship, when in fact, holds two citizenship or more. The only way the person would be legally holding single citizenship is by actually renouncing the other unintended citizenship. Look as Ted Cruz. He was considered by law, dual citizen, US and Canadian. He lived his life as an American but he is also Canadian by law. He had to officially renounce his Canadian citizenship.

So in summary, if you have another citizenship other than Canada obtained by foreign country's law such as by descent for example, as much as you want to preach to everyone that you are single citizenship holder, you do, in fact, hold dual citizenship. If you really want to a single citizenship holder, you must do your diligent to renounce any other citizenship obtained by law. In my case, I only hold Canadian citizenship. I cannot obtain any other foreign citizenship by law, even through my grandparents. So no worries for me being "REMOVED" according to you.

You do realized that sovereign citizens in US are considered to be domestic terror threat right? You do realized that some of them have been convicted on tax evasion in Canada because they haven't been paying income tax. And some of them have been driving without a license and insurance causing danger to public, right? So much for the safety of the public.

 

[screech339]

Now, to get to the "intent to reside" clause.... First go and watch this video of Minister Chris Alexander fumbling through questions that he has no knowledge of...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk&list=FLGuXdo3wl_dPRTcDl-a_CtQ&index=21

As for the “intent to reside” clause, I still believe it is meant for the period from the time you submit your application to the day you become Canadian. Once you become Canadian, you have a right as a Canadian to leave and enter Canada as long as you want. That is part of the constitution. However if, in the event (however unlikely), meant to be forcing naturalized Canadians to stay in Canada for rest of their lives, it is not enforceable. Take a look at the British citizenship law. They have the same thing. I have seen and met lots of Britons-Canadian living outside UK for years and they never lost their citizenship despite the British law having “intent to reside” clause in their Nationality Act.

 

[Silver77]

New bill allows government to remove from Canadian citizenship who participate terrorists organization.

In my opinion, person should be judged before loosing citizenship. It is more fair and make sure that he is really guilty.

 

[SinghLovCan]

In my opinion, person should be judged before loosing citizenship. It is more fair and make sure that he is really guilty.

This topic is getting quite interesting. I would be interested to know what the REAL INTENTION is behind this BILL C-24. Is this bill designed to screw (sorry for the lang. but couldn't find a better word) everyone or does it really mean what it says in black and white?

 

[screech339]

New bill allows government to remove from Canadian citizenship who participate terrorists organization.

In my opinion, person should be judged before loosing citizenship. It is more fair and make sure that he is really guilty.

That is correct. The person must be convicted in the court of law before losing citizenship is allowed. They cannot lose citizenship without an conviction. So if you were found guilty in court of participating with terrorist organization, you can lose citizenship.

 

[screech339]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/11/20/comedy-of-errors-let-woman-become-canadian-citizen-despite-abysmal-results-on-citizenship-tests/

Here is an interesting article. A woman was granted Canadian citizenship certificate by mistake due to an error by citizenship judge. The woman failed the language and history test miserable. CIC noticed the error and cancelled the certificate. The woman took it to court to keep her certificate. The court sided with CIC and said that CIC has the right to revoke citizenship since the woman wasn't legally qualified for it in the first place.

Funny how this information doesn't get reported in other news media like the Toronto Star, CBC, and CTV.

 

[zardoz]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/11/20/comedy-of-errors-let-woman-become-canadian-citizen-despite-abysmal-results-on-citizenship-tests/

Here is an interesting article. A woman was granted Canadian citizenship certificate by mistake due to an error by citizenship judge. The woman failed the language and history test miserable. CIC noticed the error and cancelled the certificate. The woman took it to court to keep her certificate. The court sided with CIC and said that CIC has the right to revoke citizenship since the woman wasn't legally qualified for it in the first place.

I wonder if the outcome of the judgement would have been the same if the woman had formally renounced her other citizenship first.

 

[FIYAZALI]

HI SinghLovCan,

you mean to say that i have to again take IELTS exam for citizenship

 

[SinghLovCan]

HI SinghLovCan,

you mean to say that i have to again take IELTS exam for citizenship

If you have good score on the old one, then submit that and no need to take new one.

 

[FIYAZALI]

As per BILL C-24 do we need to write IELTS test, before citizenship
I had been informed that before applying for citizenship an individual has to get good score in IELTS