Min Chris Alexander on Radio Today

[Canuto]

Just to inform you the minister will be speaking about the new Cda Immigration Reforms today oct 17 at 9:30 am Toronto Time on Newstalk 1010 AM station with Jerry Agar.

Too bad I'm at work, hope you guys can post later any good /bad news.

 

[eileenf]

thanks!

 

[RussCan]

i went to the radios web site but could not find any reference to that.

 

[Canuto]

This was a last minute announcement, so they may not have it on the web yet? I would listen to The radio station AM Band tune in to 1010 on your dial.
Got to go for work now. Keep us posted.

 

[eileenf]

I'm listening online http://www.newstalk1010.com/Hosts/JerryAgar.aspx.
I'll let you know. The host did mention that they would "Delve into the Throne Speech."

On verra.

 

[eileenf]

Yep. Chris Alexander coming on soon.

 

[RussCan]

Many thanks Eileen

 

[eileenf]

He's speaking about a whole range of issues presented in the Throne Speech, not just immigration.

 

[RussCan]

Just listened to him on-line. Have to admit, I was expecting something on the increase of the qualifying period or other type of tightening but he either skirted it or its not planned currently.

 

[EasyRider]

After ridiculous amount of commercials and traffic reports every minute on that radio, the only thing he revealed on Citizenship Act amendments was a plan to deal with anchor babies in some way.

 

[eileenf]

Like Easyrider said, not too much information on citizenship and immigration. We will have to wait until we see the Bill. Incidentally, I wonder if the Q2 2013 stats, which are currently 2 weeks late, will be withheld until then.

Here's what he said:
- "Almost certain" that there will be reforms to birthright citizenship to stop "unacceptable" birth tourism;
- Update the immigration system from a "reactive system" to a "proactive system" which will "invite" people with specific skills from a large pool of interested candidates based on their (perceived) ability to thrive here economically;
- Refugee system will remain largely unchanged following Kenney's "successful" reforms including the "safe countries" list.

 

[RussCan]

Eileen, would you opine to suggest an increase in the qualifying period is poised to take place also?

 

[eileenf]

Eileen, would you opine to suggest an increase in the qualifying period is poised to take place also?

I wouldn't be surprised if it is raised to 4 years, or maybe even goes back to 5 years as it was before 1977. I also suspect they may make the definition of "residence" explicit by defining it as "physical presence". But we'll have to see when the bill comes out.

The fact that he didn't speak too much about citizenship reform beyond the "birth tourism" red herring suggests that they're not sure if these issues will appeal to their typical voter as much as a "Victims' Bill of Rights" and a "Consumers Bill of Rights". This might be good news in a way. Most people probably don't know or care too much whether immigrants get to apply for citizenship after 3 years or 4 years. And there's still some time to try to shape public opinion (in our favour, hopefully) regarding the unprecedented problems and delays faced by citizenship applicants.

 

[RussCan]

I concur with your thoughts. I only hope that I will be able to apply under the current scheme in a month time as I am slated to.
You mentioned they might explicitly define physical presence…….is not it already clearly defined as 1095 days in the preceding 4 years period?

 

[eileenf]

You mentioned they might explicitly define physical presence.......is not it already clearly defined as 1095 days in the preceding 4 years period?

Residence is not defined in the Citizenship Act. Judges currently have the choice between applying any of three different legal tests to approve or deny citizenship. All are considered legitimate, but they are all different. So two applicants with identical applications could have varying outcomes of a judge's hearing depending upon which test was applied.

1. Re: Poughasemi [1993] Strict physical presence test (1095 days),
2. Re: Papadogiorgakis [1978] Pied à terre, "clear intention" to live in Canada,
3. Re: Koo [1993] "Centralized mode of existence" test, where the applicant “regularly, normally, or customarily lives.”)

Some applicants who have been denied under the physical presence test have appealed that the Koo test should have been applied, but I don't believe they were successful. Currently, the judge has wide discretion as to how to define "residence".

There's some other important cases, notably Re: Takla. You can read more about the issue here: http://immigrationlawbc.com/news/page/3/ (scroll down a bit)