New Citizenship Bill Thursday Feb 6th

[farrous13]

I agree with you muzmil.

Looking at it from this angle it's really hard to say if the additional one year will allow the CIC to handle applications in a timely manner. I say, raise the fee to $800. Why 400? Raise it even to $1k. So what? This will cover the budget and will allocate funding for jobs which will eventually reduce the processing time.

I think the current back log is close to 300K or so... Every year close to 200-225k peoples become PR's which include( direct PR's, spouses, students becoming PR, work permit holders getting PR etc ) - Based on this annual number.. every 3rd year if not all i would assume 85% of these new immigrants become eligible for citizenship. So even increasing timeline to 4 years this will not solve any problems because the influx is at same levels since last so many years and i guess eligibility may drop from 85% to 60% but still the problem will remain there. To avoid delays they should have enough resources to process at least as much applications as the number of people getting residencies. The best way to expedite the process is to increase budget, hire more staff, i guess rely more on CBSA records - Right now they charge $200 per application if they raise the fee to $400; people won't mind paying if the process takes 4-6 months rather 35 months.

 

[keesio]

Well, the great job is yet to be seen tomorrow when he will table the new bill, if the decision is to make it proactive and touch current applications, then he will go down in history as the most cruel CIC minister in the history of Canada...

That is a little dramatic. Have you read about some of the old past immigration policies this country once had? Like the Chinese Head Tax? Or trying to strip your citizenship over your ethnic background? Do you think the proposed changes are on that level?

 

[canadp]

Increasing residency requirement from 3 to 4 years does not make any sense. It will be effective only for 2 years the rule passed, afterwards CIC will keep getting same amount of applications as they are getting now.

So during this 2 years period of time, unless they get rid of backlog, faster the processing time and hire new workforces; situation is not going to change.

 

[keesio]

What they are probably trying to do is simply increase the requirements to filter out more applicants. This would lower the number of applications in general and reduce the burden and in the end making it look like they are more efficient (basically the same model used in Europe and Asia). Arbitrarily changing requirements is something that should not be done lightly. Many people plan their lives around current requirements.

 

[ramsfe]

There is no need to panic ladies and gentelmen, they will not apply the rules retroactively on applications already recieved.

I had my application returned due to a missing document and it clearly stated on the letter that all applications are processed based on the rules and regulations that is in place at the time the application is recieved. And my citizenship application had a big red stamp on it with the same date that Canada post traking system said it was deliverd on. So i think they acually open the files on the same date its recieved then let it set somewhere untill its reviewed.

Just wear your seatbelts and enjoy the ride

Well, you can never be too sure, I just called a friend of mine who is a lawyer and he explained to me that in the british system that we are in, the legislator is above everthing, a Law can very easily be retroactive as long as it respects the principles of the charter, he said that if the conservatives want to send a very harsh message to the immigrants and to show their electoral base that they mean business, then it is likely that at least some parts of the new law will be retroactive ( for example, stripping convicted "terrorists" of their citizenship even if the law was not in effect when they were convicted). He also said that those who sent their applications before the bill becomes a law have a certain right to see their applications processed according to the law that was active at the moment their applications were received, however, this is just a principle and is not very sacred and a government can go around it when it has a majority at the legislative body, however, he said that In case they make it retroactive for those who applied and who fulfilled the requierments, then one can challenge them at the federal court for discrimination, providing that someone who applied with the same timeline got citizenship anywhere else in Canada, that's why he doubts that they will make it fully retroactive, but he still says that it is completely possible that they take the risk because by the time the issue will get to the federal court, the next campaign will be over.

 

[Swede]

What they are probably trying to do is simply increase the requirements to filter out more applicants. This would lower the number of applications in general and reduce the burden and in the end making it look like they are more efficient (basically the same model used in Europe and Asia). Arbitrarily changing requirements is something that should not be done lightly. Many people plan their lives around current requirements.

Maybe if you make plans to stay in Canada only long enough to satisfy the bare minimum of physical presence, permanent residency is a more suitable status for you. A country makes a commitment when it bestows citizenship upon you and that commitment should be matched by a similar commitment on your behalf. Applying for citizenship only so you can have a "better" passport is deeply immoral.

 

[ramsfe]

Maybe if you make plans to stay in Canada only long enough to satisfy the bare minimum of physical presence, permanent residency is a more suitable status for you. A country makes a commitment when it bestows citizenship upon you and that commitment should be matched by a similar commitment on your behalf. Applying for citizenship only so you can have a "better" passport is deeply immoral.

Let's talk LAW and Legislation :

1 - you are a PR
2 - You are not a criminal
3 - You lived for the minimum X number of days in Canada
4 - You are over 18
5 - You applied for citizenship
6 - You passed the knowlege test and you showed that you are able to communicate in at least one of the two official languages

Then you can apply for citizenship and get it - and if you don't get it, you can challenge the government legally and get it!

So nothing is immoral ! a Law can't be subjective ... this is how it works in the real world! Whatever you think of what applicants are thinking of when applying for citizenship is nothing but an assumption that is Anti-charter ( because it is discriminatory), all those who got citizenship for now got it because they met the requirements that I stated above, and if you start processing applications differently without a CLEAR, charter respecting new legislation and if people start getting refused because someone took out the " morality" card, then you can imagine the legal fiasco that this will create!

Let's just be smart a little... we don't need lessons, a huge majority of us respects the law, this same majority deserves to see its rights respected and deserves not to be discriminated against - and these rights are protected no matter what any government thinks! Personally, I will fight for every single right I have, I refuse to be an electoral bargaining chip!

 

[Swede]

Let's talk LAW and Legislation :

1 - you are a PR
2 - You are not a criminal
3 - You lived for the minimum X number of days in Canada
4 - You are over 18
5 - You applied for citizenship
6 - You passed the knowlege test and you showed that you are able to communicate in at least one of the two official languages

Then you can apply for citizenship and get it - and if you don't get it, you can challenge the government legally and get it!

So nothing is immoral ! a Law can't be subjective ... this is how it works in the real world! Whatever you think of what applicants are thinking of when applying for citizenship is nothing but an assumption that is Anti-charter ( because it is discriminatory), all those who got citizenship for now got it because they met the requirements that I stated above, and if you start processing applications differently without a CLEAR, charter respecting new legislation and if people start getting refused because someone took out the " morality" card, then you can imagine the legal fiasco that this will create!

I wasn't talking about the law, I was talking about morals. Taking out a citizenship due to convenience and just because you can cheapens what being a citizen is all about. Case in point, a person who becomes a Canadian citizen only to make it easier to get a US visa doesn't deserve Canadian citizenship even though they're legally entitled to it.

 

[keesio]

Maybe if you make plans to stay in Canada only long enough to satisfy the bare minimum of physical presence, permanent residency is a more suitable status for you. A country makes a commitment when it bestows citizenship upon you and that commitment should be matched by a similar commitment on your behalf. Applying for citizenship only so you can have a "better" passport is deeply immoral.

You are assuming that the only people that care are the ones who want to be citizens of convenience. Many legit PRs are reluctant to travel simply because they do not want to risk an RQ since their country of origin is looked at more closely (maybe a bit paranoid but so be it).

I'm sure that many of the people who will scream are indeed looking for a "better" passport as you put it. And I don't mind tightening immigration rules that is one of the most generous and flexible in the developed world. But I can certainly see the impact such changes will have and how it can unfairly impact a few.

 

[farrous13]

Swede you are seeing the whole thing in one eye.
Convenience is a factor in every decision made in life.
I don't really care for those who stay in Canada to get the citizenship and then leave. They really don't affect my decisions in life or my view of Canada. There are always side effects. of course! But we can argue about Americans or Canadians who live in the Middle East just for the money. They care less about the country and its laws. However, money is convenient enough to make them leave their country and relocate.
every one seems to be complaining about the new bill. really who cares. all I read is anger towards it. it's not affecting any of the applicants who already applied. and even if it does I don't see it a big issue. it's frustrating and unfair (in some cases) but our comments won't change the law.

I wasn't talking about the law, I was talking about morals. Taking out a citizenship due to convenience and just because you can cheapens what being a citizen is all about. Case in point, a person who becomes a Canadian citizen only to make it easier to get a US visa doesn't deserve Canadian citizenship even though they're legally entitled to it.

 

[ramsfe]

I wasn't talking about the law, I was talking about morals. Taking out a citizenship due to convenience and just because you can cheapens what being a citizen is all about. Case in point, a person who becomes a Canadian citizen only to make it easier to get a US visa doesn't deserve Canadian citizenship even though they're legally entitled to it.

Freedom of thought is sacred- You are entitled to your opinion!

You just can't punish hundreds of thousands of people because your opinion tells you to do so.... while some people become citizens of convenience, principles of equality dictate that every person ( permanent resident or citizen) is protected by a charter. In my opinion, we should open all the borders of the world and give equal status to all humans everywhere, we should also make sure that ressources are divided equally so that nobody starves to death.... Does this mean that I am allowed to discriminate against all those who don't think like me ? Am i morally more human than you or anyone else ? I don't think so, the law doesn't think so either!

Some places on earth govern with morals : North Korea, Kim Jung Un killed his uncle because he believed that the guy was THINKING about taking his place, in Iran, some girls get stonned becaused someone somewhere thought that they were dirty morally, in Saudi Arabia,there is a police that makes sure that you are morally fit....

Is this where we want Canada to go ? My advice to all those who think that their values are superior is to remember how many victims their school of thought created !

Meanwhile, let's just stick to the law... there is no way that i will go down the morality road and if this government is planning to go this way, then it will have to face its fate in 2015 and Chris Alexander will have to start looking for a job as of now, unless his new citizenship act will throw him out of the country for not respecting the law!....

As for me, on a very personal level, I have never, absolutely never, not respected the law, I am living in this country, I am lawfully requesting to become a Canadian Citizen, and my plan is to live here for as long as possible. Am I morally fit Mr. Harper ? Oh, I forgot to mention that like the majority of canadians, I am Roman Catholic( last time i checked), I am white, I eat pork and don't hit women, I also pay may taxes here and respect the environnement... ( that's what I believe what they think of when reforming our beloved country...but let's stick to the law, right ? )

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/01/16/citizenship_changes_work_against_immigrant_integration_report_finds.html

 

[Dejaavu]

It is very simple. Either reduce PR to come to Canada to clear the backlog and/or increase staff processing citizenship applications even if it means higher fees for citizenship processing fee.

The Government can easily anticipate that after accepting over 300 k PRs that those PRs will apply for citizenship after 3 years. Why are they so surprised?

It is like inviting 20 people for a party and then having food for only 10 people and then complaining that everyone eats too much

 

[Dejaavu]

Farrous13,
I totally agree with you. Every decision is for our convenience.
If people follow the rules to become citizens, what is wrong about going somewhere else where one can find better career/income opportunity? There is nothing wrong with that.
If someone wants to be moral, I would say first step is not to judge others of immorality

 

[Hasher]

I am surprise by the rule of Moral set for immigrants only. Whereas thousands of Canadian and Americans are in Middle east for just sake of money/ better jobs and no moral rules for them.

Most immigrant would not like to leave Canada if we are settle with our jobs and earning, in fact immigrants are bringing all their savings to Canada, spending three years or more, strive hard to make living and at the end if still they can not have enough earning then they have all the rights to move ahead. Looking for better future is right of a human and creating barriers are not any way moral.

 

[trunorth]

Guys, for those who CIC's received your applications, your are perfectly fine. For those looking to apply this year, I don't see this bill taking effect till at least October or November. Look, it is now February. They have 2 weeks off this month and 1 week off every month in March, April and May. Then by the 20th of June they are gone all summer. Do you really think they can deal with a huge comprehensive bill at one go with all the other reforms? Remember the Senate too have to review it and debate this. I very much don't see this being implemented into law till quarter 4. That is if it passes!!! I would suggest talking to Canadians who have been involved with politics and know the impact to such a bill. We cannot control what we have no control off. Good luck everyone!