New Citizenship Bill Thursday Feb 6th

[eileenf]

You need to read the release VERY carefully... It's not saying what you are all hoping.
From http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/backgrounders/2014/2014-02-06a.asp

There is a missing comma, and it actually reads "Finally, Bill C-24 would require citizenship applicants to declare their intention to reside in Canada, before citizenship is granted." The intent is clear from the second sentence. This brings it into line with the working of the UK Nationality Act, which has an identical provision.

Hi Zardoz, I still think there's some ambiguity, so if you have a better reading on this, please let me know. The press release does not have the comma, but even with the comma (which you inferred? Or did you see it elsewhere?) I think there is ambiguity.

Reading 1: One must declare that they intend to reside in Canada at least until the day the Citizenship is granted.
Reading 2: In order for citizenship to be granted, applicants must declare their intent to reside in Canada.

The devil is in the details, but as far as I can tell, Reading 1 is the only reading that accords with the Charter.

 

[2_of_5]

Maybe I should just renounce now and get it over with, and live stateless until I get my Canadian citizenship.

 

[zardoz]

Hi Zardoz, I still think there's some ambiguity, so if you have a better reading on this, please let me know. The press release does not have the comma, but even with the comma (which you inferred? Or did you see it elsewhere?) I think there is ambiguity.

Reading 1: One must declare that they intend to reside in Canada at least until the day the Citizenship is granted.
Reading 2: In order for citizenship to be granted, applicants must declare their intent to reside in Canada.

The devil is in the details, but as far as I can tell, Reading 1 is the only reading that accords with the Charter.

I read it, in context with the following sentences, which declare the intent of the first, as being option 2. The Charter is, if I have read section 1 correctly, subject to reasonable legislation.

No doubt, we will find out when the Bill is formally read, but my money is on 2... Any takers?

 

[eileenf]

Maybe I should just renounce now and get it over with, and live stateless until I get my Canadian citizenship.

I don't believe that the US will approve your renunciation if you will be left stateless. Another thing to seriously consider is whether you wish to travel to the US in the future. My father-in-law was unlawfully deemed a renounced citizen when he was a Vietnam War draft dodger (though this has since been rectified). He had significant trouble crossing the border when coming to the US to visit his children, including hours-long detentions. This was particularly acute following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Renounced citizens were flagged as suspicious people with declared antipathy to the USA and were treated accordingly during periods of political turmoil or perceived national vulnerability.

 

[ramsfe]

I read it, in context with the following sentences, which declare the intent of the first, as being option 2. The Charter is, if I have read section 1 correctly, subject to reasonable legislation.

No doubt, we will find out when the Bill is formally read, but my money is on 2... Any takers?

Well, let me put it this way :

Imagine that it is number 2 and the person leaves Canada...

By law, a Canadian Citizen is a Canadian citizen... there is only one definition of being a canadian citizen... So no matter what they make you sign, it won't have any legal effects! Canadians are free to leave and come back to Canada whenever they please. The day they will try to change this, they will hit the wall with Charter and the constitution and everything else!

 

[on-hold]

I read it, in context with the following sentences, which declare the intent of the first, as being option 2. The Charter is, if I have read section 1 correctly, subject to reasonable legislation.

No doubt, we will find out when the Bill is formally read, but my money is on 2... Any takers?

Not me . . . In my opinion, it is no good if it is Number 2, but an ambiguous meaning is almost as bad.

To me, one of the most powerful things about citizenship is that it is absolute. I think it's very strange and sad that the Conservative government, which in other areas supports the underlying meaning of different Canadian symbols, seems to be nibbling around the edges of Canadian citizenship in pursuit of specific policy goals.

 

[on-hold]

Maybe I should just renounce now and get it over with, and live stateless until I get my Canadian citizenship.

I don't know your situation, but I don't understand this. FATCA is a form, you can even get a program that asks you for data and fills it out. What's the big deal?

 

[eileenf]

Here's the quote from the Bill http://www.scribd.com/doc/205152354/Bill-C-24, page 11:

"(c. 1) Intends, if granted citizenship
i. To continue to reside in Canada."

 

[vic48912]

I will wait to see the full detail of Bill C-24 especially the fine prints, minister Alexander was sketchy with details.

Most of the points he discuss to strengthen the citizenship act make a lot of sense however the part I find troubling is the provision to revoke citizenship of Canadians with dual nationality who are engaged in terrorism and treason. He alluded to the fact there are only about 130 Canadian fighting with groups Canadian government deemed terrorist organization......he try to assure everyone at the briefing that the government will sparingly use that provision. What stop future government using such power for mischief? I don't believe politicians or bureaucrats should be given that kind of power, revocation of citizenship should be done a judge.

 

[zardoz]

Here's the quote from the Bill http://www.scribd.com/doc/205152354/Bill-C-24, page 11:

"(c. 1) Intends, if granted citizenship
i. To continue to reside in Canada."

Yep, Option 2 it is....

 

[on-hold]

Here's the quote from the Bill http://www.scribd.com/doc/205152354/Bill-C-24, page 11:

"(c. 1) Intends, if granted citizenship
i. To continue to reside in Canada."

Jerk move, Harper, even if it is only symbolic.

 

[trunorth]

Boy o boy! This Bill is gonna have a long voyage in the House and Senate. There is gonna be alot of debate and amendments that will happen before this can be implemented. I doubt this will be signed till year end if it even passes. Relax all those who are applying this year.

 

[on-hold]

Boy o boy! This Bill is gonna have a long voyage in the House and Senate. There is gonna be alot of debate and amendments that will happen before this can be implemented. I doubt this will be signed till year end if it even passes. Relax all those who are applying this year.

There will be as much debate and as many amendments as the majority party allows -- my guess is little, and none.

 

[keesio]

I don't know your situation, but I don't understand this. FATCA is a form, you can even get a program that asks you for data and fills it out. What's the big deal?

FATCA is not just the form (Form 8938) but also a government policy and treaty with other countries. Basically having other countries send information on any American citizens with financial accounts there. It is a privacy issue and also some banks/countries do not want to deal with it and decide not to have American clients (i.e. - A bank refusing to service American clients). It's not a big deal in Canada because Canadian financial institutions are too tied to the US and have too many American clients. But in other countries, Americans are having a hard time finding a bank to open an account with.

It's just a pain.

 

[eileenf]

Here's the quote from the Bill http://www.scribd.com/doc/205152354/Bill-C-24, page 11:

"(c. 1) Intends, if granted citizenship
i. To continue to reside in Canada."

yes, option 2.

A question that brings together our two main concerns: Could Ministerial revocation for "false representation or fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances" be employed if a naturalized citizen, who signed the declaration, chooses to exercise their Charter Mobility Rights and indicates that continual residence in Canada was not their true, lifelong intention? This looks possible...and again, it looks offensive to the value and equality of citizenship.