Sign petition: Citizenship Act Bill C-24 discrimination

[Newbie2014]

It is indeed an advantage compared with outland applicants, but it is an advantage, which, in opinion, has been earned by these groups, since during their stay in Canada pre-PR, they have (at least to some extent) been 'Canadianized'. ....
Shouldn't they be the kind of new citizens the government is looking to keep, and wasn't this supposedly the purpose of the newly proposed citizenship act?

The reality is, the present government is concerned with making the road as difficult as possible. As mentioned earlier, by making the Canadian citizenship requirements particularly onerous, it hopes to make it less worthwhile for fraudsters to seek it out.

However, in addition to targetting fraudsters, it also wants to keep law-abiding, hard working immigrants here. The more years you stay here, the deeper your roots become: your children don't want to leave their school friends, you obtain seniority in your job, you join the sports club in your community and make new golfing buddies, the older and less attractive you are to foreign employers. That's as plain and simple as it gets.

In order to keep you here, the government consciously decided to sacrifice the security and opportunities that citizenship gives you (the comfort that you will not get deported, the ability to vote and have a say in the governance of the community you live in, the ease of an unrestricted passport for your vacation trips, the ability to apply for government jobs). The government has calculated that your comfort is not so much a priority as its own goal of ensuring you stay put for much of your productive work life. It has given you citizenship, and it wants something back in return. From now on, you will pay a heavier price in time and treasure for it (that is what they mean by "raising its value"). The government will no longer play nice about this. And because it has the strong support of the Canadian people, your petition will likely go nowhere.

If you understand that it is an explicit goal of the government to keep you here for as long as possible, then it will alleviate some of the confusion you are experiencing. Not the frustration, just the confusion.

 

[sashali78]

The reality is, the present government is concerned with making the road as difficult as possible. As mentioned earlier, by making the Canadian citizenship requirements particularly onerous, it hopes to make it less worthwhile for fraudsters to seek it out.

However, in addition to targetting fraudsters, it also wants to keep law-abiding, hard working immigrants here. The more years you stay here, the deeper your roots become: your children don't want to leave their school friends, you obtain seniority in your job, you join the sports club in your community and make new golfing buddies, the older and less attractive you are to foreign employers. That's as plain and simple as it gets.

In order to keep you here, the government consciously decided to sacrifice the security and opportunities that citizenship gives you (the comfort that you will not get deported, the ability to vote and have a say in the governance of the community you live in, the ease of an unrestricted passport for your vacation trips, the ability to apply for government jobs). The government has calculated that your comfort is not so much a priority as its own goal of ensuring you stay put for much of your productive work life. It has given you citizenship, and it wants something back in return. From now on, you will pay a heavier price in time and treasure for it (that is what they mean by "raising its value"). The government will no longer play nice about this. And because it has the strong support of the Canadian people, your petition will likely go nowhere.

If you understand that it is an explicit goal of the government to keep you here for as long as possible, then it will alleviate some of the confusion you are experiencing. Not the frustration, just the confusion.

I am not confused at all regarding the government's goals and underlining reasons for the Bill, that is one of the reasons why I oppose it.
Anyhow, you are entitled to your views and opinions like anybody else.

However, we have reached over 1000 signatures in the first 48h!
I have also published the proposed action plan on the petition page, all who signed the petition should receive the update shortly:
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/canada-parliament-do-not-allow-discrimination-of-former-foreign-workers-and-students-by-new-canadian-citizenship-bill-c-24

 

[MasterGeek]

Signed !

 

[vbomb]

They are just making it stricter, similar to the US immigration law
Sorry but most Canadians will support this

-5 years to apply for citizenship (unless still married to the sponsored US citizen spouse)
-Time spent before green card does not count
-Green card eligibility is at discretion of the US customs official where 6 months or more outside US is considered a non resident and can be asked to give up your green card

Being a student here myself, I completely agree that the time as international student should count since it's time with Canadian friends school etc. that you learn the most about the country and people

Other than that, the bill is fine

 

[MrB]

Re: Citizenship Act Bill C-24 discrimination of former foreign workers and students

You mis-understand me -- I do not have any bias against your position. I just found your use of the term "discrimination" to be inappropriate. My use of the term "fly away" was overly dramatic in an attempt to make a point.

At any rate, with regards to the timelines that you quoted above to demonstrate the hardship of students .... During the 3 to 4 years that they took to complete their studies, the students were foreigners. I studied in the U.S.; I remained a foreigner throughout that time. I have friends who studied in the U.K.; they remained foreigners throughout that time. The reality is:
- Obtaining Canadian PR status after just one year of work experience is an advantage that students enjoyed courtesy of the Canadian government.
- Applying for citizenship after just two years of PR residency is an advantage that students enjoyed courtesy of the Canadian government.
(Processing times are the same for all, so we will not delve into that.)

Now that the government has eliminated that advantage, it feels to you as if the government's action is punitive. It is not. Compared to other immigrants, they enjoyed an advantage. To point this out does not invalidate your concerns. I am being a devil's advocate in explaining why (I think) your campaign will likely not succeed.

I have focused on students in my explanations above, but feel free to provide other examples of pre-PR times so as to enable us to discuss their issues.

I agree with you that discrimination is the wrong choice and perhaps the wrong approach to creating awareness for this aspect of the bill. I would also be one of the first people being in the immigration business to accept that immigration should be seen as a privilege. That said I disagree with your U.S/U.K analogy, stating that because you and your friends remained FN's throughout your studies, then we in Canada as foreign workers/International students should recognize our advantage.

No disrespect but that idea is flawed and almost laughable. Just like you I have friends and family members both in the UK and US that are now green card holders/those in the UK with their "stays" and most obtained it through the academic/professional route. So the main fact that you remained a foreign national could have been one of many reasons e.g perhaps your skills weren't required or may be you just didn't care to migrate. What I'm pretty much getting at is that most countries need and have a route for foreigners to immigrate permanently. It's a symbiotic relationship, so while we acknowledge and respect that it's a privilege to be here in Canada, the government should acknowledge that it's a privilege to have us and act accordingly.

I don't know a country in the world that accepts immigrants and don't need them (Of course with the exemption of those admitted based on Humanitarian and Compassionate considerations), the levels/quotas may vary, it might be a highly selective process depending on the country and her needs but the the bottom line is that they have that need. Even the U.S that has a population almost 10 times that of Canada is still in need of immigrants.

Now let's focus on the proposed bill. I think before any arguments are made, it is essential to understand the rationale behind the creation of this section of the bill. Here's a quote from minister Alexander himself

"That means making sure that people who are becoming citizens have really lived here, and have lived here for enough time to really understand what citizenship is about, what the country is about"

Can you explain to me how it makes sense that somebody like me who has lived here 9yrs pre-PR and 11yrs till date, "has not really lived here, and lived here for enough time to really understand what citizenship is about, what the country is about"

Now to me that's where it gets unfair and unreasonable. I am not saying it's a discriminatory law, I can't even identify a motive for that so I won't make that claim. However I would say the following about it: imperfect, shortsightedness, grey areas, shortcomings e.t.c.

I am not asking for an elimination of the whole bill, I am proposing they make amendments and exemptions to certain sections of the bill which is very normal in law. No bill is perfect and this section screams amendment! Making amendments to this specific law is not going to derail the agenda of strengthening the Citizenship Act.

ps: Think about why the Canadian Experience Class was created, think about why 1 year was eliminated for foreign workers, think about the minister's quote, align them together and tell me if things add up.

 

[sashali78]

Re: Citizenship Act Bill C-24 discrimination of former foreign workers and students

I agree with you that discrimination is the wrong choice and perhaps the wrong approach to creating awareness for this aspect of the bill. I would also be one of the first people being in the immigration business to accept that immigration should be seen as a privilege. That said I disagree with your U.S/U.K analogy, stating that because you and your friends remained FN's throughout your studies, then we in Canada as foreign workers/International students should recognize our advantage.

No disrespect but that idea is flawed and almost laughable. Just like you I have friends and family members both in the UK and US that are now green card holders/those in the UK with their "stays" and most obtained it through the academic/professional route. So the main fact that you remained a foreign national could have been one of many reasons e.g perhaps your skills weren't required or may be you just didn't care to migrate. What I'm pretty much getting at is that most countries need and have a route for foreigners to immigrate permanently. It's a symbiotic relationship, so while we acknowledge and respect that it's a privilege to be here in Canada, the government should acknowledge that it's a privilege to have us and act accordingly.

I don't know a country in the world that accepts immigrants and don't need them (Of course with the exemption of those admitted based on Humanitarian and Compassionate considerations), the levels/quotas may vary, it might be a highly selective process depending on the country and her needs but the the bottom line is that they have that need. Even the U.S that has a population almost 10 times that of Canada is still in need of immigrants.

Now let's focus on the proposed bill. I think before any arguments are made, it is essential to understand the rationale behind the creation of this section of the bill. Here's a quote from minister Alexander himself

"That means making sure that people who are becoming citizens have really lived here, and have lived here for enough time to really understand what citizenship is about, what the country is about"

Can you explain to me how it makes sense that somebody like me who has lived here 9yrs pre-PR and 11yrs till date, "has not really lived here, and lived here for enough time to really understand what citizenship is about, what the country is about"

Now to me that's where it gets unfair and unreasonable. I am not saying it's a discriminatory law, I can't even identify a motive for that so I won't make that claim. However I would say the following about it: imperfect, shortsightedness, grey areas, shortcomings e.t.c.

I am not asking for an elimination of the whole bill, I am proposing they make amendments and exemptions to certain sections of the bill which is very normal in law. No bill is perfect and this section screams amendment! Making amendments to this specific law is not going to derail the agenda of strengthening the Citizenship Act.

ps: Think about why the Canadian Experience Class was created, think about why 1 year was eliminated for foreign workers, think about the minister's quote, align them together and tell me if things add up.

It seems that there is certain objection to my use of the word "discrimination". Like I mentioned in my prior posts, the discrimination I am talking about is with regards of the IMPACT of the new legislation on former temporary residents relative to the rest of the immigrants. However, I agree that discrimination is a harsh word and am willing to rephrase and improve the concept of the petition. Today, I have published an action plan and inquiry for suggestions on the petition page, you are all welcome to participate.
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/canada-parliament-do-not-allow-discrimination-of-former-foreign-workers-and-students-by-new-canadian-citizenship-bill-c-24

 

[Canadian2007]

-------They are just making it stricter, similar to the US immigration law
Sorry but most Canadians will support this

-5 years to apply for citizenship (unless still married to the sponsored US citizen spouse)
-Time spent before green card does not count
-Green card eligibility is at discretion of the US customs official where 6 months or more outside US is considered a non resident and can be asked to give up your green card

Being a student here myself, I completely agree that the time as international student should count since it's time with Canadian friends school etc. that you learn the most about the country and people

Other than that, the bill is fine-----------

How is it exactly that Green card eligibility is at discretion of US custom official? US has clear rules regrading immigration laws and its not made up by officials like they do here at CIC. And also they have a ombudsman office where you can complain and ask for redress. And they do not take 3-6 years to process a citizenship application.

Make the same strict rules like US like 5 yers residency req, days counted from PR but dont take 3-6 years to process application.
US doesnt officially make 2 classes of citizens. They dont make you sign Intend to reside caluse.

 

[Newbie2014]

That said I disagree with your U.S/U.K analogy, stating that because you and your friends remained FN's throughout your studies, then we in Canada as foreign workers/International students should recognize our advantage.

No disrespect but that idea is flawed and almost laughable. Just like you I have friends and family members both in the UK and US that are now green card holders/those in the UK with their "stays" and most obtained it through the academic/professional route. So the main fact that you remained a foreign national could have been one of many reasons e.g perhaps your skills weren't required or may be you just didn't care to migrate.

Your friends remained foreigners up until the company they worked for decided to plunk down the $10K or so to needed to sponsor them for a green card. The determining factor in their obtaining a green card was their company's decision to sponsor them; prior time spent in the U.S. (on the standard 1 year OPT offered to F-1 visa-holders, or the six years work status offered to H1-B visa holders) counted for nothing.

I am at a loss as to what message your example above is meant to convey. Do you mean that because your friends got green cards, the PR status offered to foreign students in Canada is nothing special? There's a logic disconnect here I am having trouble with....

... the government should acknowledge that it's a privilege to have us and act accordingly.

Yup. That is why they have proposed this new law. They are visibly acknowledging just how privileged they are to have your fine self grace their land. Can't you just feel their love?

Now let's focus on the proposed bill. I think before any arguments are made, it is essential to understand the rationale behind the creation of this section of the bill. Here's a quote from minister Alexander himself

"That means making sure that people who are becoming citizens have really lived here, and have lived here for enough time to really understand what citizenship is about, what the country is about"

Can you explain to me how it makes sense that somebody like me who has lived here 9yrs pre-PR and 11yrs till date, "has not really lived here, and lived here for enough time to really understand what citizenship is about, what the country is about"

You are discombobulated because you have taken Alexander's statement at face value. I already explained the government's rationale in my post above. It wants you to spend the most productive years of your life in Canada, and will be as obstructive as possible to accomplish this -- even to the point of asking you to sign an un-enforceable contract to remain here after you receive your citizenship.

Read paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the post in this link, and you will understand what I mean about not taking Alexander's statements at face value. It is just government "double speak":
https://secure.immigration.ca/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14745&PN=18&title=changes-to-citizenship-process-in-2014

 

[sashali78]

Your friends remained foreigners up until the company they worked for decided to plunk down the $10K or so to needed to sponsor them for a green card. The determining factor in their obtaining a green card was their company's decision to sponsor them; prior time spent in the U.S. (on the standard 1 year OPT offered to F-1 visa-holders, or the six years work status offered to H1-B visa holders) counted for nothing.

I am at a loss as to what message your example above is meant to convey. Do you mean that because your friends got green cards, the PR status offered to foreign students in Canada is nothing special? There's a logic disconnect here I am having trouble with....


Yup. That is why they have proposed this new law. They are visibly acknowledging just how privileged they are to have your fine self grace their land. Can't you just feel their love?


You are discombobulated because you have taken Alexander's statement at face value. I already explained the government's rationale in my post above. It wants you to spend the most productive years of your life in Canada, and will be as obstructive as possible to accomplish this -- even to the point of asking you to sign an un-enforceable contract to remain here after you receive your citizenship.

Read paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of the post in this link, and you will understand what I mean about not taking Alexander's statements at face value. It is just government "double speak":
https://secure.immigration.ca/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14745&PN=18&title=changes-to-citizenship-process-in-2014

The more I read your comments the more I am confused whether you are supporting or opposing the petition cause (let alone the wording, I assume you do support it). I am sure you would be very valuable as a supported and someone who can contact his local MP's. Si i would appreciate if you would sign up for the petition:
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/canada-parliament-do-not-allow-discrimination-of-former-foreign-workers-and-students-by-new-canadian-citizenship-bill-c-24
and also volunteer for MP or Media contact by sending your details to: FightTheBillC24@yahoo.ca

 

[torontosm]

How is it exactly that Green card eligibility is at discretion of US custom official? US has clear rules regrading immigration laws and its not made up by officials like they do here at CIC. And also they have a ombudsman office where you can complain and ask for redress. And they do not take 3-6 years to process a citizenship application.

Make the same strict rules like US like 5 yers residency req, days counted from PR but dont take 3-6 years to process application.
US doesnt officially make 2 classes of citizens. They dont make you sign Intend to reside caluse.

You don't seem to fully understand either the US or the Canadian immigration systems. Contrary to your assertion, both countries have clear immigration laws and both countries amend those from time to time. Both countries have officials whose job it is to enforce these laws. And both countries have systems whereby you can challenge decisions or complain. And, neither country takes 6 years to process a citizenship application.

 

[sinpguy]

Anybody here know when is the second reading of this bill in "House of commons"? Hope it will take at least end of April to become a law

 

[Canadian2007]

Quote from Torontosm-

You don't seem to fully understand either the US or the Canadian immigration systems. Contrary to your assertion, both countries have clear immigration laws and both countries amend those from time to time. Both countries have officials whose job it is to enforce these laws. And both countries have systems whereby you can challenge decisions or complain. And, neither country takes 6 years to process a citizenship application..

And of course you dint quite read what I wrote neither understood it. I did not say that both countries take 6 years to process citizenship applications.

I was comparing the citizenship laws for both US and Canada and how Canada has CIC official who exercise their power without respecting the existing law.

US doesnt take 3-6 years to process citizenship application , CIC does. (many many example are here in these forums.)

USCIS had ombudsman office where you can take up a complaint and mistreatment-- CIC has no such department. amazing!!

US doesnt ask you sign a Intend to reside form for naturalized citizens but CIC is proposing. Essentially there will be 2 classes of citizens and different treatments for born and naturalized citizens.

 

[torontosm]

I was comparing the citizenship laws for both US and Canada and how Canada has CIC official who exercise their power without respecting the existing law.

Could you please provide one example of a CIC official who has operated outside of the law?

US doesnt take 3-6 years to process citizenship application , CIC does. (many many example are here in these forums.)

Could you please provide one link to any example on this forum where someone has submitted a complete citizenship application that has been under process for 6 years?

USCIS had ombudsman office where you can take up a complaint and mistreatment-- CIC has no such department. amazing!!

You can file complaints via your local MP or through the Minister's office. In extreme circumstances, you can also go to the courts.

US doesnt ask you sign a Intend to reside form for naturalized citizens but CIC is proposing. Essentially there will be 2 classes of citizens and different treatments for born and naturalized citizens.

This has not been adopted in Canada as of yet either, so it's a bit unfair to compare it to the US.

I note that while painting such a rosy picture of the US system, you neglected to mention that the US requires PR's to maintain residency in the US at all times (i.e, no 3 year grace period as provided by Canada), pay taxes while living overseas (if you are able to liver overseas) and wait for 5 years to apply for citizenship.

 

[Canadian2007]

Could you please provide one example of a CIC official who has operated outside of the law?

If Physical presence is becoming a new proposed law then why CIC was already enforcing it, operating outside of existing law.

And you mean complaining to the same cons MPs and HON Minister who wants to eliminate the court system and bypass the judicial systems due process to acquire more authority to make decisions?

 

[vbomb]

Quote from Torontosm-

You don't seem to fully understand either the US or the Canadian immigration systems. Contrary to your assertion, both countries have clear immigration laws and both countries amend those from time to time. Both countries have officials whose job it is to enforce these laws. And both countries have systems whereby you can challenge decisions or complain. And, neither country takes 6 years to process a citizenship application..

And of course you dint quite read what I wrote neither understood it. I did not say that both countries take 6 years to process citizenship applications.

I was comparing the citizenship laws for both US and Canada and how Canada has CIC official who exercise their power without respecting the existing law.

US doesnt take 3-6 years to process citizenship application , CIC does. (many many example are here in these forums.)

USCIS had ombudsman office where you can take up a complaint and mistreatment-- CIC has no such department. amazing!!

US doesnt ask you sign a Intend to reside form for naturalized citizens but CIC is proposing. Essentially there will be 2 classes of citizens and different treatments for born and naturalized citizens.

I don't know whether you pretend not to know this or don't really know this. It is MUCH HARDER to immigrate to the US than to Canada. There are thousands of people that lived in the US for more than 10 years and have NOT received a green card.
That's why many students come to Canada because it's fairly easy to immigrate here after their studies. This is a well known fact.

If you leave the US for more than 6 months with no supporting reason, the customs officer could start the process of revoking your green card. It has happened before. This is a fact, doesn't matter if there is an ombudsman or not. It is in the law. This is much stricter than Canada

This bill is just getting it closer to how it's done in other countries. And as I said, apart from the omission of time spent in Canada before the PR, I think it's fair

http://lawandborder.com/risk-abandoning-green-card-abroad-6-months/

At the port of entry, CBP could inspect you just briefly after you wait in line, or CBP could take you to a separate office for detailed questioning (called “secondary inspection”). Then CBP would take one of several actions:

Admit you to the U.S. (granting a documentary waiver, if necessary).
Refer you to deferred inspection, meaning a later appointment with CBP for further investigation.
Allow you to withdraw your application for admission and return abroad.
Allow you to relinquish your LPR status (voluntarily give up your green card) and be admitted as a nonimmigrant.
Issue a notice to appear for removal proceedings in Immigration Court. Notably, CBP does not have the power to take your permanent resident status away. Only a judge in Immigration Court can do that.