New Citizenship Bill Thursday Feb 6th

[keesio]

Well, do we know this for a fact? Or is it pure speculation at this point? If its purely symbolic why bother with it at all?

Of course it is speculation because the rule has not been implemented yet!

The best we can go by is precedent. What is that precedent? PNP. I think we can all agree that Leon is one of the most knowledgeable seniors on this forum. He thinks PNP is a fair precedent also.

As for purely symbolic... think about it.... how many things are there in the world that exist for symbolism only and don't really serve any practical purpose?

 

[links18]

As for purely symbolic... think about it.... how many things are there in the world that exist for symbolism only and don't really serve any practical purpose?

So, what's the symbolism here?

 

[keesio]

So, what's the symbolism here?

-To pump up pride in Canada
-appease Canadian constituents who are increasingly hostile to immigration with a clause that doesn't really do anything (how often have we seen politicians enact some law that sounds good but when you look deeper, it really does nothing and just all for show? Costs them nothing and they get a bump in the polls for perception)
-to make it sound like Canada is looking mostly for immigrants eager to come to Canada (this really ties into the second bullet above) because it looks bad when they come then only to leave for greener pastures elsewhere (ties into the first bullet). Especially if it is to the USA. It irks people if they go to the USA because of the love-hate relationship with the USA. Leaving to the USA after coming to Canada is a bit of a slap in the face to the Canadian psyche (though many Canadian born citizens also go to the USA for opportunity - hence some hypocrisy here). Why do you think PRs who go to the US a lot often get hit with an RQ?

 

[links18]

Why do you think PRs who go to the US a lot often get hit with an RQ?

Well, I didn't know that happens. What if the PR is a US citizen who immigrated to Canada to get away from the US, do they get more favourable treatment? 8)

 

[keesio]

Well, I didn't know that happens. What if the PR is a US citizen who immigrated to Canada to get away from the US, do they get more favourable treatment? 8)

Of course if you are already a US citizen, then you do get less scrutiny for many trips to the US. I am an example of that.

But look at other PRs RQ experience (who are not from the US). Many will say that if you have a lot of travel to the US or more importantly, currently living/working in the US while their application is being processed, the chance for an RQ is very high.

 

[on-hold]

-To pump up pride in Canada
-appease Canadian constituents who are increasingly hostile to immigration with a clause that doesn't really do anything (how often have we seen politicians enact some law that sounds good but when you look deeper, it really does nothing and just all for show? Costs them nothing and they get a bump in the polls for perception)
-to make it sound like Canada is looking mostly for immigrants eager to come to Canada (this really ties into the second bullet above) because it looks bad when they come then only to leave for greener pastures elsewhere (ties into the first bullet). Especially if it is to the USA. It irks people if they go to the USA because of the love-hate relationship with the USA. Leaving to the USA after coming to Canada is a bit of a slap in the face to the Canadian psyche (though many Canadian born citizens also go to the USA for opportunity - hence some hypocrisy here). Why do you think PRs who go to the US a lot often get hit with an RQ?

The symbolism is part of all of the following:

- that immigrants are brought here to work
- that citizenship is their 'payment' for working, and if they keep it and stop working (here) then they are taking advantage of Canada
- that their choice of Canada means they should continue to choose Canada
- that they should feel guilty if the complexity of an international life, or aging family, or their identity, causes them to move abroad
- that arriving here in middle age means that you have a different set of duties than someone born here
- that your participation in Canadian social benefits is judged by standards not applied to birth Canadians
- that people who are born here acquire a 'Canadian' identity naturally, but people who immigrate here do so slowly and lose it quickly if they don't live here permanently
- that the range of 'Canadian' is limited, and that immigrants don't contribute to it, they absorb it
- and that the contributions immigrants are welcome to make to their new country are only welcome if they are local and not global

I don't think it is worth getting really worked up over, just like I can pledge allegiance to the Queen and her heirs but remain oblivious to the monarchy; but the 'meaning' of this pledge is there, and it is important for people who generally do not support immigrants or their role in Canadian public policy. It is, simply, stoopid.

 

[keesio]

I don't think it is worth getting really worked up over, just like I can pledge allegiance to the Queen and her heirs but remain oblivious to the monarchy; but the 'meaning' of this pledge is there, and it is important for people who generally do not support immigrants or their role in Canadian public policy. It is, simply, stoopid.

Symbolism is usually overblown and at times stupid. People get into fights over symbolism. Example? Abe's visits to Yasukuni. His visits piss off China, Korea and other countries that suffered under imperial Japan. But he feels the need to go visit as a symbolic gesture of respect to the war dead despite the presence of Class A war criminals. And don't get me started about people getting pissed off over religious symbolism.

 

[keesio]

Symbolism is usually overblown and at times stupid. People get into fights over symbolism. Example? Abe's visits to Yasukuni. His visits piss off China, Korea and other countries that suffered under imperial Japan. But he feels the need to go visit as a symbolic gesture of respect to the war dead despite the presence of Class A war criminals. And don't get me started about people getting pissed off over religious symbolism.

btw - Just wanted to make clear that I am in no way comparing the clause in the bill to the despicable visits by Abe to Yasukuni. My point was simply that symbolism (in general) exists and often times has negative impact for symbolic acts that really don't amount to much on paper. Just wanted to be clear on that before I offend anyone.

 

[on-hold]

No, I agree completely -- basically, a 'symbol' is anything that is more important than it actually is. In this case, it is highly unlikely that the clause will EVER be applied in a practical manner; and if it is, then it shows that anti-immigration sentiment has grown. Symbolically, however, it represents a certain attitude towards immigration and immigrants that is not, shall we say, equitable.

I think a lot of the fuss about this comes from the fact that immigrants are, by definition, open to moving -- not everyone in the developing world wants to move, and few do. A lot of Canadians don't understand this, and think of Canada as a paradise with people beating on the gates. I've lived in Thailand and Laos, and even in the poorest parts of Southeast Asia, people like their lives. Sure, they want more money, they'd like better governance; but they also like day to day living, the food, their neighbours, and the things that are important to them that Canada won't have. The people who immigrate once, might immigrate twice -- because they're the kind of people who do. To some Canadians, this smacks of:

a) ingratitude, we let you in and this is how you repay us? (But to the immigrant, immigration is not always an escape, it's a shot in the dark, a venture, and something that is ongoing and open to modification)

b) cheating, all you do is eat benefits (But to the immigrant, they are also aware of what they lost by immigrating, not only the health care and schools that are gained)

c) betrayal, you go to the States! (all through history Canada has been sensitive to people heading off to the U.S., now it feels like an older sister whose boyfriend broke up with her and started dating her hot sibling (pun intended)

Whereas to the immigrant, who has to fit Canada into their lives, the 'reside here' clause sounds as if they are no longer considered full humans, with freedom to make complicated choices.

 

[harry_aussie]

I second you On-hold

 

[Newbie2014]

Minister wants immigrants to spend more time in Canada in order to apply for Citizenship but his statement sounds stupid when he refused to acknowledge time already spent in Canada.

If you take the minister's words at face value, they will not make sense. That is because he is engaging in political double-speak.

 

[MontToron]

No, I agree completely -- basically, a 'symbol' is anything that is more important than it actually is. In this case, it is highly unlikely that the clause will EVER be applied in a practical manner; and if it is, then it shows that anti-immigration sentiment has grown. Symbolically, however, it represents a certain attitude towards immigration and immigrants that is not, shall we say, equitable.

I think a lot of the fuss about this comes from the fact that immigrants are, by definition, open to moving -- not everyone in the developing world wants to move, and few do. A lot of Canadians don't understand this, and think of Canada as a paradise with people beating on the gates. I've lived in Thailand and Laos, and even in the poorest parts of Southeast Asia, people like their lives. Sure, they want more money, they'd like better governance; but they also like day to day living, the food, their neighbours, and the things that are important to them that Canada won't have. The people who immigrate once, might immigrate twice -- because they're the kind of people who do. To some Canadians, this smacks of:

a) ingratitude, we let you in and this is how you repay us? (But to the immigrant, immigration is not always an escape, it's a shot in the dark, a venture, and something that is ongoing and open to modification)

b) cheating, all you do is eat benefits (But to the immigrant, they are also aware of what they lost by immigrating, not only the health care and schools that are gained)

c) betrayal, you go to the States! (all through history Canada has been sensitive to people heading off to the U.S., now it feels like an older sister whose boyfriend broke up with her and started dating her hot sibling (pun intended)

Whereas to the immigrant, who has to fit Canada into their lives, the 'reside here' clause sounds as if they are no longer considered full humans, with freedom to make complicated choices.

Nice analysis

 

[marcus66502]

There is no problem with the number of years of residency required for Citizenship purposes. The problem is that Canada does not want to recognize time already spent in Canada before getting PR.This clause is utter bull $hit. How can time spent in Canada be ignored ?. Minister wants immigrants to spend more time in Canada in order to apply for Citizenship but his statement sounds stupid when he refused to acknowledge time already spent in Canada.

What do u mean how can time spent in Canada be ignored? It can be ignored if a law is passed that says it is to be ignored. And in a lot of countries it IS ignored. Go read the US law on citizenship. It says you cannot apply for citizenship until you have been admitted for lawful permanent residence for at least 5 years. "Admitted" does not mean you came from somewhere else. It means you got permanent resident status, no matter how (even if you adjusted to permanent residence in the US). You could have spent 100 years in the US under whatever temporary non-immigrant status. The only time that counts toward those 5 years is the time after you were granted permanent resident status.

Don't be fooled by statements from legislators or politicians. Length of time spent in a country has nothing to do with whether you are eligible for citizenship under that country's laws. Nor does familiarity with the country itself. I have personally met a 45-year old man who had never spent a day of his life in Canada but yet had Canadian citizenship because he inherited it from his Canadian-born father. Likewise, I know quite a few Canadians who have citizenship by birth in Canada who quite frankly (in my opinion) should be stripped of their Canadian citizenship because they're so ignorant they don't have the faintest idea about the structure of the Government of Canada, or about Canada's geography.

I think what you mean to say is that you don't like it that they're gonna start ignoring pre-PR time. Oh well, though. Nothing you can do about it. I have lots of things I don't like about this bill (including the lengthening of the required residence period from 3 to 4 years) that wouldn't be there if I had my way. But so what? We don't have the power to make law, THEY DO. End of story.

 

[harry_aussie]

Mate laws are made and can be ammended as well. This law is in its proposal state and still need to pass, although i'am not very optimistic in seeing a change but opposing this clause won't do any bad either. Well the question here is the fairness of this clause and its relation to the strengthening of Citizenship. The implementation of this clause defeats the purpose it is being implemented for.

Since you have cited an example of US, i can put in an example of Australia which is also a developed and immigration seeking country. Here in Aus, you need a physical residence of 4 years to be eligible to apply for Citizenship and out of these 4 years only 1 year must be as a Permanent Resident. The remaining 3 years can be on any visa. Minister wants to make sure that applicants for Citizenship have lived here enough, well how much enough is enough ?. Someone who is living in Canada, working in Canada or has completed studies in Canada has lived enough to know about Canada and btw term "know Canada" has actually no boundaries as well. I believe even Canadians(born or naturalized) don't even know all about Canada.

 

[trunorth]

I know of someone who used to go to the US 2x a month for cross border shopping with same day returns and made a couple of single week trips there and never got a RQ. I do not believe they will RQ because of trips there. There is usually some other doubt.