new rules about citizen

[emamabd]

 

[screech339]

Polara, if it's a law then they can do it. if it's a single officer then if he has a bad day and you passed by his face he might do it everything could happen... Enjoy your happy life buddy with your 3 passports and keep mocking Americans and 8th grade students ;D at least in USA the president himself can't strip your citizenship ;D

I'm having a grand laugh at your paranoia. Seems to me that you keep ignoring the crucial part of the new citizenship law. In order to be stripped of your citizenship, you must first have DUAL citizenship and you must be CONVICTED of terrorism in the court of law. So a single CIC officer cannot arbitrarily strip of your citizenship just because he is having a bad day.

If a person hold dual citizenship and convicted of terrorism, as far as I'm concerned, that person deserved to be stripped of Canadian citizenship. End of story. If a person is law abiding and stays out of trouble, regardless of where in the world that person is, that person has nothing to worry about.

 

[yazmost]

Calmdown your "grand laugh" buddy.... Looks like you are the smartest one in your family that sponsored you to come to Canada! That was from your profile

"Category........: FAM
Visa Office......: Vegreville"

So you came to Canada throw your family in your home country? and then you talking to immigration forum all members came from different country and all of them have another second or third citizenship and then you say it's only if you have a second citizenship this could happen.....
what you are laughing about was written by professional lawyers so, keep grand laughing buddy but don't laugh so hard it could get you heartache.

I'm having a grand laugh at your paranoia. Seems to me that you keep ignoring the crucial part of the new citizenship law. In order to be stripped of your citizenship, you must first have DUAL citizenship and you must be CONVICTED of terrorism in the court of law. So a single CIC officer cannot arbitrarily strip of your citizenship just because he is having a bad day.

If a person hold dual citizenship and convicted of terrorism, as far as I'm concerned, that person deserved to be stripped of Canadian citizenship. End of story. If a person is law abiding and stays out of trouble, regardless of where in the world that person is, that person has nothing to worry about.

 

[yazmost]

While you are lauging just read this paragraph

"One offence that would permit the Minister to revoke citizenship, under proposed s. 10(2)(b),
is a terrorism offence under the Criminal Code or the Canadian equivalent for an offence
committed outside of Canada, for which the citizen received at least a five-year sentence. In
many countries, allegations of terrorism are used to punish political opponents, facilitated by
low thresholds for convictions and harsh sentences. An analysis of whether the conviction is
the equivalent of a terrorism offence in Canada is complex, and would be at the discretion of an
individual officer.

It's still at the discretion of an individual officer

 

[ZingyDNA]

There is no way you can lose your citizenship unless you have at least one other citizenship, AND commit terrorism against Canada. If I understand the new Citizenship act correctly, this rule doesn't care if you are born or naturalized Canadian. If you were born Canadian then acquired another citizenship, you will still be stripped off Canadian citizenship if you join ISIS to fight Canada.

However, what I don't like is that the government is broadening the definition of "terrorism", which give them more and more power, not only in revoking citizenships, but also in controlling all the other things...

While you are lauging just read this paragraph

"One offence that would permit the Minister to revoke citizenship, under proposed s. 10(2)(b),
is a terrorism offence under the Criminal Code or the Canadian equivalent for an offence
committed outside of Canada, for which the citizen received at least a five-year sentence. In
many countries, allegations of terrorism are used to punish political opponents, facilitated by
low thresholds for convictions and harsh sentences. An analysis of whether the conviction is
the equivalent of a terrorism offence in Canada is complex, and would be at the discretion of an
individual officer.

It's still at the discretion of an individual officer

 

[polara69]

While you are lauging just read this paragraph

"One offence that would permit the Minister to revoke citizenship, under proposed s. 10(2)(b),
is a terrorism offence under the Criminal Code or the Canadian equivalent for an offence
committed outside of Canada, for which the citizen received at least a five-year sentence. In
many countries, allegations of terrorism are used to punish political opponents, facilitated by
low thresholds for convictions and harsh sentences. An analysis of whether the conviction is
the equivalent of a terrorism offence in Canada is complex, and would be at the discretion of an
individual officer.

It's still at the discretion of an individual officer

Here we go again.. And you say it so yourself, one has to be a terrorist or join a terror group. Hence a law abiding Canadian citizen will not lose his or her citizenship. Period! We go in circles here, believe what you want to believe, I do the same.

 

[yazmost]

So you mean, I abandon my US citizenship to be safe? hence no clear definition of what terrorism is? and it doesn't ' say against Canada and no one knows the clear definition of terrorism as I said. You could get in a fight with someone then you will be called a terrorist then. The main point is there are 2 different citizens 1st class and second class.

Good luck guys not gonna write again all respect to all of you.

 

[keesio]

That clause in CP24 is the most misunderstood. There have been so many discussions on it in this forum.

 

[era1521]

If one is suspect of terrorism or intention to affiliate to a terror organization, they not need to revoke that individual's citizenship; they can seize the passport; and is exactly what they do even now and even to Canadian born citizens.
Now, if convicted of terrorism acts against Canada, citizenship and passport are the last things they need to worry about.

The situation that paranoia pharmacist mentioned where because working outside Canada may loose the citizenship due to misrepresentation during application process, its hard to believe.

 

[dpenabill]

At the risk of taking troll-bait:

Regarding the Canadian Bar Association submission of comments regarding Bill C-24 in April of 2014

While most of the submission by the CBA in April 2014, commenting on what was then Bill C-24 (now known as the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, or the SCCA), was basic analysis and observation, a significant portion of the opinions expressed were at best rhetorical and those regarding the oft called "intent to reside" requirement (which is actually more aptly referred to as the "intent to continue to reside in Canada" requirement, with strong emphasis on the inclusion of the term continue, which not only signals but clearly embodies the import of this requirement for Permanent Residents to be eligible for citizenship) were unfounded, inaccurate, and a red herring. This, I have oft observed, was a unfortunate distraction, since the impact of this particular requirement is very likely to be huge . . . a huge impact on the processing of applicants, however, with NO impact on any citizen . . . and deserved to be debated relative to its actual import, not the absurd red herring that it would pose a risk to the Charter guaranteed mobility rights of citizens.

This was discussed in much depth, both in this forum and in others, last year, BEFORE Bill C-24 was adopted and after . . . and it periodically arises again and again . . . albeit at this stage, given how thoroughly debunked the criticism has been, when it is raised again that tends to signal the likelihood of troll activity rather than sincere discourse.

It warrants noting that these particular criticisms, about the potential impact of the intent to reside requirement, were specifically dismissed during debate and committee dicussions during the legislative process, and have all but disappeared from any informed discussions about the overall import and impact of the SCCA.

There are a couple exceptions. One is a student-authored Continuing Legal Education paper published by CARL last September, which repeated the CBA criticisms and contained numerous other fairly serious errors. The other is a law review article which is purportedly authored, or co-authored, by an immigration-citizenship lawyer in Toronto. The Gerami article, like the CARL CLE article, contains obvious, overt errors and virtually no supporting citation of authority, and in particular overlooks the language of the statutory provision itself.

All this has been discussed at length here. See:

I have seen a statement by a serious jurist expressing the opinion that Section 5(1)(c.1) (as it will read in the Citizenship Act when the respective provisions come into force) is unconstitutional.

Indeed, such a statement was published in the March 2015 issue of the Journal of Parliamentary and Political Law, in an article titled The Democratic and Constitutional Challenges of the Citizenship Bill (Bill C-24 of 2014): The Effect of Impulsive Legislative Action on the Parliamentary Process, co-authored by Arghavan Gerami, who is the founder and managing director of the Gerami Law Professional Corporation (her LinkedIn profile highlights immigration law, while her Firm's website, in addition to several aspects of immigration law, also highlights providing citizenship services).

Except, the article is poorly written, more poorly supported by citation, and while it explicitly states that Section 6 of the Charter is violated by the SCCA it offers no citation to any specific provision in the SCCA which interferes with or restricts a citizen's mobility. Gerami's discussion of this particular issue revolves mostly around the "exile, banishment or deportation of citizens," and the oft repeated argument that the SCCA "creates two tiers of citizens," but also obliquely refers to the required "intent to reside" provision in the SCCA.

I say the reference is oblique because the SCCA in no way requires that citizens, naturalized or otherwise, have such an intent. The article does not illuminate how in particular the SCCA, purportedly, interferes with or restricts a naturalized citizen's mobility, and it refers to section 6 of the Charter in the aggregate, without distinction as to the mobility rights of citizens as prescribed by subsection 6(1) as opposed to the lesser mobility rights of PRs (in addition to citizens) prescribed by subsection 6(2).

That post is much longer. It is part of multiple posts. I am not sure why I bother to respond to this issue again, and again, since again I tend to apprehend troll-bait is at play more than an effort to engage in a sincere discussion.


Required intent to reside generally:

Actually, while I do not recall the precise language, the U.S. does in effect also require a commitment to live in the U.S. as a condition for obtaining citizenship.

In fact, the U.S. still has an intent requirement in qualifying to retain Green Card status, let alone for becoming a U.S. citizen.

And in general, the path to citizenship in the U.S., from applying to immigrate in the first place to qualifying to take an oath of citizenship, poses significantly more hurdles than the path to citizenship in Canada. While the processing timeline for a citizenship application in the U.S. tends to be way less than it does in Canada, the timeline to get to the stage where one is eligible is actually longer.

Meanwhile, many, many countries in the world impose far greater restrictions on who can become a citizen than does Canada.

Moreover, to top it off, as a Canadian citizen I find it rather offensive when an American tries to tell our government who should be allowed to become a Canadian citizen.

While the reasons I finally got the message, love it or leave it, are mostly about the fact there is a woman to blame (in a positive way, a Canadian who wooed me north), the pervasiveness of such attitudes to our south more than helped propel me on my way north. Sure, I am still an American citizen, still having to file a U.S. tax return each and every year, but now my heart is here, in Canada . . . and yeah, the fact there is no shortage of Americans willing to tell Canada what it should do or be is offensive.

 

[NN74]

Well said...I have another question if you could help. If someone having valid UAE residency visa at the time of citizenship interview though he/she had fulfilled all residency requirements such as 1095+ days along with proofs like airline boarding passes, contracts, CBSA/UAE exit entry reports etc. what are his chances of getting RQ at that time?

At the risk of taking troll-bait:

Regarding the Canadian Bar Association submission of comments regarding Bill C-24 in April of 2014

While most of the submission by the CBA in April 2014, commenting on what was then Bill C-24 (now known as the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, or the SCCA), was basic analysis and observation, a significant portion of the opinions expressed were at best rhetorical and those regarding the oft called "intent to reside" requirement (which is actually more aptly referred to as the "intent to continue to reside in Canada" requirement, with strong emphasis on the inclusion of the term continue, which not only signals but clearly embodies the import of this requirement for Permanent Residents to be eligible for citizenship) were unfounded, inaccurate, and a red herring. This, I have oft observed, was a unfortunate distraction, since the impact of this particular requirement is very likely to be huge . . . a huge impact on the processing of applicants, however, with NO impact on any citizen . . . and deserved to be debated relative to its actual import, not the absurd red herring that it would pose a risk to the Charter guaranteed mobility rights of citizens.

This was discussed in much depth, both in this forum and in others, last year, BEFORE Bill C-24 was adopted and after . . . and it periodically arises again and again . . . albeit at this stage, given how thoroughly debunked the criticism has been, when it is raised again that tends to signal the likelihood of troll activity rather than sincere discourse.

It warrants noting that these particular criticisms, about the potential impact of the intent to reside requirement, were specifically dismissed during debate and committee dicussions during the legislative process, and have all but disappeared from any informed discussions about the overall import and impact of the SCCA.

There are a couple exceptions. One is a student-authored Continuing Legal Education paper published by CARL last September, which repeated the CBA criticisms and contained numerous other fairly serious errors. The other is a law review article which is purportedly authored, or co-authored, by an immigration-citizenship lawyer in Toronto. The Gerami article, like the CARL CLE article, contains obvious, overt errors and virtually no supporting citation of authority, and in particular overlooks the language of the statutory provision itself.

All this has been discussed at length here. See:

That post is much longer. It is part of multiple posts. I am not sure why I bother to respond to this issue again, and again, since again I tend to apprehend troll-bait is at play more than an effort to engage in a sincere discussion.


Required intent to reside generally:

Actually, while I do not recall the precise language, the U.S. does in effect also require a commitment to live in the U.S. as a condition for obtaining citizenship.

In fact, the U.S. still has an intent requirement in qualifying to retain Green Card status, let alone for becoming a U.S. citizen.

And in general, the path to citizenship in the U.S., from applying to immigrate in the first place to qualifying to take an oath of citizenship, poses significantly more hurdles than the path to citizenship in Canada. While the processing timeline for a citizenship application in the U.S. tends to be way less than it does in Canada, the timeline to get to the stage where one is eligible is actually longer.

Meanwhile, many, many countries in the world impose far greater restrictions on who can become a citizen than does Canada.

Moreover, to top it off, as a Canadian citizen I find it rather offensive when an American tries to tell our government who should be allowed to become a Canadian citizen.

While the reasons I finally got the message, love it or leave it, are mostly about the fact there is a woman to blame (in a positive way, a Canadian who wooed me north), the pervasiveness of such attitudes to our south more than helped propel me on my way north. Sure, I am still an American citizen, still having to file a U.S. tax return each and every year, but now my heart is here, in Canada . . . and yeah, the fact there is no shortage of Americans willing to tell Canada what it should do or be is offensive.

 

[dpenabill]

Well said...I have another question if you could help. If someone having valid UAE residency visa at the time of citizenship interview though he/she had fulfilled all residency requirements such as 1095+ days along with proofs like airline boarding passes, contracts, CBSA/UAE exit entry reports etc. what are his chances of getting RQ at that time?

These questions have always been difficult to answer. It has never been easy to predict who gets RQ. These questions are even more difficult now given the extent of continuing change in processing citizenship applications, in conjunction with less and less transparency about policies and practices.

Anyone can be issued RQ. So it is always better to be prepared, to have the supporting documents showing place of residence and employment at the least . . . just in case you get RQ. Probably would not do any good to carry extra documents to the interview . . . whether you will get RQ'd or not will depend on current policy and practice. If the visa triggers RQ, it will trigger RQ regardless of what else you have to show.

Overall, however, the outcome is almost always favourable for qualified applicants who can document their life in Canada . . . later if not sooner.