Nine Things You Need to Know About the Changes to Canadian Citizenship

[dbo73]

Crimesinister,

I try to stay away from the entire discussion as I don't understand all the aspects of the concern and don't want to get into all the details right now (e.g. whether it applies to PR in the process only or as well to citizens after, etc.). However, there is one thing that really confuses me and maybe you have some insights:

Everything is hung up on this "intent to reside" statement. How can we discuss this topic when there are not even clear indicators to measure my intent? First of all, my intent is an assessment as of the time I sign the application and/or take the oath. I can't read the glass bowl what the future might bring. How do they (CIC) wanna take future developments as an basis to assess whether my earlier statement was true - that is impossible? Secondly, even if they consider to take anyone's absence from Canada as an indicator, this still wouldn't give any ground to question my intention: I can live 5 years somewhere else, this doesn't mean that my intention is no longer to live in Canada (I just not live here currently but still intend to reside here)?

I just think it would be rather difficult for CIC to prove that my intention changed (e.g. I intend to have kids, it didn't work out so far, maybe it never will, but my intention never changed, just the fact that I currently don't have any can't be the basis to assume my intention is different (just an example - not for real).

 

[CanadianCountry]

Torontosm,
You made a valid point but lets say even after all these assurances somebody is effected. What are the legal options for the effected party? How can the effected individual defend himself (in the courts) specifically without spending a single dime (for the legal fees etc)?

Answers??

Crimesinister, instead of taking things out of context, or posting hypothetical cases of what "could" happen, why don't you also mention what the government has repeatedly stated on this point? Specifically, the Minister and several other prominent figures have repeatedly asserted that the intent to reside clause applies ONLY between the application date and the oath, and that ALL citizens are free to leave Canada once they become citizens. This is protected by the Charter and the new law does not contravene it.

You are free to pursue whatever cases you want, but at least present the whole story instead of trying to gain support for your cause by spreading misinformation

 

[CanadianCountry]

+1
Great point.

Crimesinister,

I try to stay away from the entire discussion as I don't understand all the aspects of the concern and don't want to get into all the details right now (e.g. whether it applies to PR in the process only or as well to citizens after, etc.). However, there is one thing that really confuses me and maybe you have some insights:

Everything is hung up on this "intent to reside" statement. How can we discuss this topic when there are not even clear indicators to measure my intent? First of all, my intent is an assessment as of the time I sign the application and/or take the oath. I can't read the glass bowl what the future might bring. How do they (CIC) wanna take future developments as an basis to assess whether my earlier statement was true - that is impossible? Secondly, even if they consider to take anyone's absence from Canada as an indicator, this still wouldn't give any ground to question my intention: I can live 5 years somewhere else, this doesn't mean that my intention is no longer to live in Canada (I just not live here currently but still intend to reside here)?

I just think it would be rather difficult for CIC to prove that my intention changed (e.g. I intend to have kids, it didn't work out so far, maybe it never will, but my intention never changed, just the fact that I currently don't have any can't be the basis to assume my intention is different (just an example - not for real).

 

[MUFC]

I really don't see how this intend to reside clause will be enforced efficiently.

It is impossible to measure the validity of an intent based on a specific point in time.

 

[CanadianCountry]

MUFC,
Why you keep flip-flopping on the topic? Either you can be in agreement or disagreement. Lets say even if you disagree only 1% with the bill, you should be voicing against it and not in favor.

I really don't see how this intend to reside clause will be enforced efficiently.

It is impossible to measure the validity of an intent based on a specific point in time.

 

[MUFC]

MUFC,
Why you keep flip-flopping on the topic? Either you can be in agreement or disagreement. Lets say even if you disagree only 1% with the bill, you should be voicing against it and not in favor.

I don't have a problem with that new law. The funny thing according to me is that the people are giving far too much attention on something which is not dangerous in practice... I am talking about the Intend to reside Fake paranoia.

This clause is just a symbolic attachment.

 

[CanadianCountry]

MUFC,
Many (and i would say majority) believe that the intent to reside is NOT a symbolic attachment.

I don't have a problem with that new law. The funny thing according to me is that the people are giving far too much attention on something which is not dangerous in practice... I am talking about the Intend to reside Fake paranoia.

This clause is just a symbolic attachment.

 

[screech339]

MUFC,
Many (and i would say majority) believe that the intent to reside is NOT a symbolic attachment.

You are right. It is NOT a symbolic attachment. It only applies to period of application submitted to day of oath.

 

[CanadianCountry]

This provision in one of the key requirement. As there wont be a very concrete metric to measure/gauge intent, that leaves us with a high probability that it will be applied with a hit-and-miss approach. The CIC officers will make assumptions on intent, assumptions are prone to go wrong, and people will be effected for no reason.

You are right. It is NOT a symbolic attachment. It only applies to period of application submitted to day of oath.

 

[MUFC]

MUFC,
Many (and i would say majority) believe that the intent to reside is NOT a symbolic attachment.

It is not possible for a state structure (CIC) to measure the REAL intention. Intentions are not constant, they are changing during the lifeline and they know that pretty well.

I didn't find any direct evidence in the law itself to consider this clause as a real danger for the final decision.

 

[CanadianCountry]

MUFC,
You disregarded this provision on the basis that real intent is difficult to determine.

But many believe that this difficulty in determination of intent will not stop CIC officers from attempting to make assumptions on the intent of the applicant and thus denying the application.

It is not possible for a state structure (CIC) to measure the REAL intention. Intentions are not constant, they are changing during the lifeline and they know that pretty well.

I didn't find any direct evidence in the law itself to consider this clause as a real danger for the final decision.

 

[screech339]

MUFC,
You disregarded this provision on the basis that real intent is difficult to determine.

But many believe that this difficulty in determination of intent will not stop CIC officers from attempting to make assumptions on the intent of the applicant and thus denying the application.

They can't make assumptions. They need concrete evidence to suggest that the applicant was never intending to reside in Canada during the application process. Something that is quite hard to gather. The only "evidence" they can use is income filing as non residence.

 

[MUFC]

MUFC,
You disregarded this provision on the basis that real intent is difficult to determine.

But many believe that this difficulty in determination of intent will not stop CIC officers from attempting to make assumptions on the intent of the applicant and thus denying the application.

CanadianCountry

CIC must have solid evidences in order to deny an application ( Like prove of not declared trips or miscalculation from the applicant of the physical days) in these situations we have numbers and facts.

It will be impossible for CIC to determine the real intention of a person at the time when he/she made the signature over the application. It is not possible to read the peoples minds.

 

[crimesinister]

I would think that the Charter ranks a little bit higher than a common citizenship application and I can't see any government arguing otherwise. But given your legal background, I'm sure you already knew this.

I have no legal background beyond successfully raising a Charter challenge against a parking ticket which was issued in error.

 

[neutral]

This is exactly as conspiracy theories .... made for ignorant people that believe everything they read.