I realize this is largely one more topic for wailing and gnashing of teeth, but I am an old man pleading for some perspective, so I make the following offering:
asaif said:
I believe the majority of Germans during the 1930's were with the Nazis. Having the majority in your side doesn't make you right or just. Changing the rules in the middle of a process without considering how these changes affect the life of people who already made substantial commitments and sacrifices is ruthless, regardless of how many people support them.
Are you seriously comparing the amendment of Canada's immigration and citizenship law, to impose more restrictions on the grant of citizenship, with supporting a montrous, pervasively violent government with an agenda to commit genocide resulting in a holocaust killing millions and millions of people?
A tiny bit of perspective please.
Implementing changes to the law, changes which had been being discussed
for years (thus giving
lots of notice to anyone who was seriously interested in a life in Canada), that made the path to citizenship more restrictive and longer does not constitute an injustice. The result is probably
unfair to some, but not every unfairness is an injustice, and certainly not an injustice comparable to supporting genocide.
And
ruthless? Really? Like beheading innocents? Enslaving the weak and vulnerable? Torturing people? Torturing animals? Making money selling dangerous drugs to young people? Commiting violent robbery?
Regarding changing the rules in the middle of a process:
The
SCCA does
NOT change the rules in the middle of a process. Period.
The revised residency requirements will only apply to applications made and in process
after those provisions come into force,
way beyond more than a year after the changes were formally tabled in Parliament. And there was plenty of notice these changes were coming for
years prior to that.
At the very least, there was notice given when Minister of CIC Jason Kenney was referring to the government making significant changes to the requirements for the grant of citizenship in early 2012, and by early 2013 was promising those changes by the end of that year, by the end of 2013. The fact it took the government nearly two more years to make the changes and put them into effect was no reason for anyone to rely on those changes not coming.
And again, the changes have
NO substantive effect on any application in process, not even as of now (more than a year after the First Reading of Bill C-24).
That some inconvenience (admittedly a major inconvenience for some) resulted to those who were not paying attention to something purportedly so important in their lives, does not warrant the accusation that the majority of Canadians are ruthless monsters on a par with those who supported the Nazis. (Note, too, that the majority of Canadian voters voted against the Conservatives, whose majority government was obtained by merely 40 percent or so of the vote.)
asaif said:
Just imagine this hypothetical . . .
Someone who comes to Canada expecting to be able to apply for citizenship after a certain period and at a certain cost (as per the rules when he applied) but is surprised by changes in the rules that, if known to him earlier, would have him take a different turn in his life.
Foremost, the path to citizenship is still a part of Canadian law. The changes do not take away the path to citizenship.
The changes add merely
one year to the actual presence requirement to qualify (recognizing that total wait can be longer for some due to elimination of pre-landing credit). Again, while the impact of this may be unfair to some, it is not a wrong on the scale of being deprived of one's rights, let alone murder or mayhem.
These changes have been on the agenda of this government since it was part of their platform in the
2011 election, more specifically articulated by then Minister Jason Kenney in 2012. And there was no implicit promise that the law would not change, since indeed there was plenty of discussion in Canada, and a promise of this by 2013, that the law
would be changed.
Moreover, there is never an implicit promise that the law will not change.
There was no basis for anyone to detrimentally rely on the existing law as a promise there would be no change.
Even without the notice that was so visible, the changes in law were readily predictable. Federal Court justices had been pleading with Parliament to change the law for many, many years; a previous Bill actually tabled earlier by the Conservatives, prior to the election in 2011, failed to proceed in part because so many wanted it to be more strict than the one then proposed.
Those who fail to do their homework are themselves to blame for being surprised when their best laid plans are delayed.
And that is, after all, the detriment involved here:
delay, a mere delay in qualifying for citizenship. Sure, that can amount to a major inconvenience, but it is not comparable to imprisonment let alone taking away a person's life. And the extent of the delay is actually far, far less than what thousands of applicants have suffered in the past five years . . . by 2011 and 2012, anyone choosing to actually become a Canadian PR should have easily seen that overall, from date of becoming a PR to date of becoming a citizen could take five to eight years (3+ to qualify, 2+ in processing). Practically speaking that timeline probably will not change, not for the vast majority . . . that is, that five to eight years from landing to citizenship will probably
still be a reasonably anticipated timeline.
So, relative to appropriate orienting of one's moral compass, some genuine perspective would be nice.
Regarding prospect of longer processing times because of the Intent to Reside clause:
Predicting current processing timelines is largely guessing. Predicting future timeless is just more guessing.
That said:
The so-called
intent-to-reside clause is unlikely to have much, if any impact on the vast majority of applicants.
A significant minority of applicants will, however, probably be much affected in multiple ways, including ways that result in very long processing times.
CIC is already, and has been for several years now, elevating the level of scrutiny for applicants perceived to have continuing, significant ties abroad. This appears to be one of the major factors resulting in three to four year processing timelines for some applicants, while others (like me last year) have faced a timeline of merely six to ten months (mine was eight).
Huge dichotomies in timelines, some with quite short timelines (eight months to a year), others with very long timelines (two years and up), will probably persist.
The big difference for applicants who will be processed pursuant to the
intent-to-reside clause will be the scope of discovery CIC pursues, that is, the scope of the RQ and related process. It will be more intrusive and broader in scope, and certain disclosures will be mandatory. This will not have an impact on the vast majority of applicants for whom CIC perceives no
reasons-to-question-residency, but will have a huge impact on those to whom CIC does issue RQ.
While many factors will likely have an influence in how it goes for applicants, the big, general factor is the extent to which an individual appears to have substantial continuing ties abroad . . . so for sure, immediate family living abroad, continuing work or business abroad or even just status to work abroad (such as ME work permits, or U.S. Green Card or other work authorization status), extended time abroad after applying, are circumstances which will likely tip the scales and lead to the greater scrutiny and longer processing timelines. This will not likely affect the majority of applicants, just a significantly large minority.
aammaadmi said:
Can someone fill me with what is changed in law and who are affected?
There are other topics which go into depth regarding the changes which are part of the
SCCA -- often referred to here by reference to the Bill that was before Parliament, Bill C-24, which was adopted and became law June 19, 2014, to be known as the
Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, or
SCCA, important parts of which have not yet come into force but will come into force sometime this year, almost certainly by August, more likely sooner than that.
There are two key areas of change which are the focus of most discussions in the forum. One has to do with added grounds for revocation of citizenship and procedures for revoking citizenship, which is in particular discussed more in other topics.
The other key area of change is what is required to qualify for a grant of citizenship, and that is the change that is the focus of attention here. Apart from the addition of the
intent-to-reside clause, the main impact of the changes is twofold:
-- substantial increase in minimum time spent physically present in Canada to qualify for citizenship (1460 days)
-- elimination of credit for time spent in Canada prior to becoming a PR (time present pursuant to
temporary status)
It warrants noting, with some emphasis, that the increased physical presence requirement is merely ONE YEAR more.
Who does this affect?
No one with an application in process is affected. We do not know the actual date these provisions will come into force, but applications made that day or after will be the ones affected by the changes.
Obviously, those who are now a PR and who will not meet the current qualifications before the changes come into force will be affected.
Anyone who landed and became a PR before December 2011 could be qualified and apply by April even if they spent ordinary holidays abroad.
Anyone who landed and became a PR after October 2011 would have been, if they did their homework, aware that:
-- the timeline for citizenship application processing was getting longer and longer
-- the party that won the 2011 election, the Conservatives, had included major changes to the
Citizenship Act in their platform that year, so that major changes could be expected to be implemented in the coming years
So really no one should have been caught off-guard by the changes.
