Sign petition: Citizenship Act Bill C-24 discrimination

[sashali78]

We have reached over 2300 signatures over the last 96 hours. Our next goal is 5000 signatures.
http://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/senate-of-canada-house-of-commons-mp-s-do-not-allow-the-discrimination-of-former-foreign-workers-and-students-by-the-new-canadian-citizenship-bill-c-24

Those wishing to volunteer , please sign up at : FightTheBillC24@outlook.com

Thanks,
Alex

 

[torontosm]

I don't think so. There are precedents where PR's must demonstrate intent, but not citizens. I'd like to see a requirement that citizens demonstrate intent to reside in Canada as a condition for their retention of citizenship, which has not been successfully challenged in court as a violation of the Charter.

Actually, one of the examples I mentioned applies only to citizens. For citizens sponsoring their spouses from overseas (which PR's can not do), they must demonstrate intent and convince their IO of their firm intention to move back to Canada. As a result, this could be viewed as a violation of their Charter rights to reside wherever they want. However, it is a condition for their spouse to receive PR status that was implemented by the government, and it must be respected.

For a PR, on the other hand, it's a totally different story. As a PR, I don't have a Charter right to enter Canada. That changes the whole ball game at the border because it means that they could deny me entry for refusing to answer their personal questions.

It's really hard to fully appreciate the benefits of citizenship until you're actually put in situations where your rights and freedoms are being reduced. Simple minds don't think about this. Instead, they find it easier to just ask "what's the big deal if you're not yet a citizen?"

Obviously as a PR you don't have the same rights as a citizen. As a PR, you have to also respect the laws determined by the government, and if they opt to change their rules to further the interests of the country and its citizens, you must respect that as well. Citizens do the same with regard to non-immigration laws, so why would the case for PR's be any different?

 

[keesio]

I don't really care for the 99% of the jobs in Canada. 99% of the jobs in this country are a joke: part-time, minimum wage, unskilled, survival jobs what just lead to a dead end. It's the other 1% of the jobs that will get you a comfortable living and when you don't get selected for those jobs, you'll be staying up at night wondering if it's because of your qualifications or because your application got thrown in the trash after they saw you mentioned you're not a Canadian citizen. I say you'll be wondering because you'll never know for sure. It's not like they'll tell you. You're never gonna hear from them.

(I'm exaggerating a little when I say 1%. Maybe it's 5% but the point comes across).

I lived in Canada for almost 14 years before becoming a citizen. During that time, I was constantly contacted by Canadian companies that tried to convince me to join them. I even interviewed for a few of them to check it out and got legit offers. My non-Canadian status has never hurt me.

I know several people who have lived in Canada for decades as PR. One for over 30 years. Why no Citizenship? Because they are from a country that does not recognize dual citizenships (at the time). When I talked to them about Citizenship, they were like "what is most important is PR". They obviously have no desire to vote like I did. Or look for opportunities abroad. But they never felt economically disadvantaged because they were not a Citizen. They have done well in life. Same goes for my dad in the US. 35 years in the US on a green card.

There are certainly a few jobs that being a Citizen is important. Politics. Government (like judges), National security. But for 99% of people, it does not apply to them.

 

[salzafar]

Actually, one of the examples I mentioned applies only to citizens. For citizens sponsoring their spouses from overseas (which PR's can not do), they must demonstrate intent and convince their IO of their firm intention to move back to Canada. As a result, this could be viewed as a violation of their Charter rights to reside wherever they want. However, it is a condition for their spouse to receive PR status that was implemented by the government, and it must be respected.

Obviously as a PR you don't have the same rights as a citizen. As a PR, you have to also respect the laws determined by the government, and if they opt to change their rules to further the interests of the country and its citizens, you must respect that as well. Citizens do the same with regard to non-immigration laws, so why would the case for PR's be any different?

I'm sure you're a citizen and will not be effected by this. From your comments, PRs seem to be second class citizens anyway.What difference does it make to you ? Live and let Live please!

 

[marcus66502]

Actually, one of the examples I mentioned applies only to citizens. For citizens sponsoring their spouses from overseas (which PR's can not do), they must demonstrate intent and convince their IO of their firm intention to move back to Canada. As a result, this could be viewed as a violation of their Charter rights to reside wherever they want. However, it is a condition for their spouse to receive PR status that was implemented by the government, and it must be respected.

Right. It is a condition for their spouse to receive PR status. It is not a condition for them to keep their own citizenship. The government isn't saying "we're gonna come after you and revoke your citizenship for misrepresentation of this intent. You just don't get to sponsor your spouse for permanent residence."

That being said, the case with this bill is a little different. The Minister can justify the proposal to require intent by saying that this requirement is being made on PR's, who have not yet taken the oath and are not yet citizens. They can say it would be no different than the requirement to intend to reside in a specific province for provincial nominees. The problem is that the government wants to use this declaration of intent to move to revoke citizenship of a citizen in the future. That is, they want to be able to restrict the rights of someone who is already a citizen. I'm betting it won't be easy to sell the courts on this.

 

[marcus66502]

I lived in Canada for almost 14 years before becoming a citizen. During that time, I was constantly contacted by Canadian companies that tried to convince me to join them. I even interviewed for a few of them to check it out and got legit offers. My non-Canadian status has never hurt me.

I know several people who have lived in Canada for decades as PR. One for over 30 years. Why no Citizenship? Because they are from a country that does not recognize dual citizenships (at the time). When I talked to them about Citizenship, they were like "what is most important is PR". They obviously have no desire to vote like I did. Or look for opportunities abroad. But they never felt economically disadvantaged because they were not a Citizen. They have done well in life. Same goes for my dad in the US. 35 years in the US on a green card.

There are certainly a few jobs that being a Citizen is important. Politics. Government (like judges), National security. But for 99% of people, it does not apply to them.

Again, I've already addressed this and shouldn't have to repeat myself. It all depends on your personal preferences, and those vary from person to person.

If you're keen on keeping your old citizenship, then yes it would make sense to not want to be a Canadian citizen. Others, like myself, have different feelings about the value of the old citizenship.

If you're not aiming for the things in Canada that require citizenship, then you've got nothing to worry about. Some of us have different aspirations.

If you're not interested in international travel other than to your home country or if your home country's passport already affords you visa-free travel, then you're probably all set. But you can't assume everybody's circumstances are the same.

PR vs Citizenship? I personally value the peace of mind of having a right to enter Canada and I can only have that as a citizen. Don't start an argument about how you've never had a problem entering Canada with a PR card. I've never had a problem either, but that doesn't change the fundamental truth: you don't technically have a Charter-guaranteed right to enter Canada, which means they can treat you differently at the border, with more scrutiny. Just because they haven't so far, doesn't mean they can't.

We all value things differently.

 

[meyakanor]

PR vs Citizenship? I personally value the peace of mind of having a right to enter Canada and I can only have that as a citizen. Don't start an argument about how you've never had a problem entering Canada with a PR card. I've never had a problem either, but that doesn't change the fundamental truth: you don't technically have a Charter-guaranteed right to enter Canada, which means they can treat you differently at the border, with more scrutiny. Just because they haven't so far, doesn't mean they can't.

Just to add a little to this issue of 'rights' to enter Canada. Permanent residents DO have the rights (yes, rights, not privilege) to enter Canada. Even if the border agent decides (on balance of probability) that you are inadmissible for some reasons or in breach of residency requirements, the most they can do is to report you at entry and STILL let you in until immigration makes the final decision on your status. You will then have the rights to appeal.

Obviously, your PR status can be revoked if you commit crimes or misrepresentation while applying or are in breach of residency obligation, but as a PR, you have the right to enter Canada, and as I mentioned, not even the border agent can touch or mess with this right (again, the most they can do is report you and still let you in, and you can still stay in Canada, and enjoy all the benefits of PR until the immigration hearing is concluded). See A27(1):

A permanent resident of Canada has the right to enter and remain in Canada, subject to the provisions of this Act.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-13.html#h-18

BSOs will sometimes become aware of evidence of non-compliance with the residency obligation in the course of the determination that a person is a permanent resident. When BSOs believe that a person who they have determined is a permanent resident is in non-compliance with the residency obligation of A28, the BSO may explain to the person that it has been established that they have a right to enter Canada, that there is some reason to believe they could be the subject of a report under IRPA which could lead to the issuance of a removal order, and that although the person may now enter Canada, they may choose to answer additional questions to determine whether the BSO's concerns are well founded or not.

www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf‎

This is not the same, as, for example, green card holders in the United States, where they are only authorized to enter the US, and US immigration is well within their rights to revoke anyone of their green card status for no reasons at all.

The American Green Card is a document which gives permission for an immigrant to come into the United States and to live there. The Canadian Green Card (Permanent Resident Card), however, is a document which gives the right to come into and live within Canada.

http://www.capellekane.com/why-is-a-canadian-green-card-compared-to-an-american-green-card/

So yes, a Canadian PR has the right to enter and stay in Canada, but they don't have the right to leave indefinitely and still keep their PR (unlike citizens).

 

[mathlete]

Personally I see only two reasons why one would really need to care about citizenship:

1) You travel frequently to countries that require a visa or
2) You are planning to immigrate from Canada

Option (2) is really why the citizenship process is being held up us long as it has been. People want to meet the residency requirements and then move back to their native "higher risk countries", with a get out of jail free card should they need to leave one day.

For me it's all about option (1). I travel once per month and every country I go to requires a visa on my passport. That means scheduling appointments, filling out a ton of paperwork and paying huge fees almost every month. To Europe that means 2 trips to an embassy for every trip and about $90. To the UK a one year business visa is over $500. Need to attend a business gathering overseas with less than 3 weeks notice, I most likely can't go.

 

[keesio]

If you're not interested in international travel other than to your home country or if your home country's passport already affords you visa-free travel, then you're probably all set. But you can't assume everybody's circumstances are the same.

Ok, I haven't thought of that one but you are right that having a passport that would now enable you easier travel to many other countries is certainly an attractive benefit.

 

[marcus66502]

This is not the same, as, for example, green card holders in the United States, where they are only authorized to enter the US, and US immigration is well within their rights to revoke anyone of their green card status for no reasons at all.

In all due respect, the reference you quoted in support of this claim is NOT an official source (i.e. government source or specific law/regulation). I very much doubt there's a major difference in practice between how US PR's get treated at the US border vs. how Canadian PR's get treated at the Canadian border. Given the choice between a US and a Canadian PR card, I'd take the US any day. Most people would, regardless of what they publicly claim.

What I was talking about is the difference in treatment at the border between a PR and a citizen. They may not outright deny a PR entry but, as you correctly assert, they are certainly within their right to initiate a request for what's called an A44 report -- a request for an investigation into whether you have maintained your PR status. A CBSA officer can initiate this just for a PR refusing to answer personal questions such as "what was the purpose of the trip abroad?". The officer can say the refusal to answer questions creates reasonable doubt as to whether the PR has maintained his status.

Again, people in here can ask "what's the bid deal?" all day long, but I personally don't like the idea of having to disclose to a CBSA officer details of my private life during trips outside Canada. If you're a citizen, you can just tell the officer it's none of his business and there's nothing he'll be able to do to get back at you. End of story.

 

[torontosm]

What I was talking about is the difference in treatment at the border between a PR and a citizen. They may not outright deny a PR entry but, as you correctly assert, they are certainly within their right to initiate a request for what's called an A44 report -- a request for an investigation into whether you have maintained your PR status. A CBSA officer can initiate this just for a PR refusing to answer personal questions such as "what was the purpose of the trip abroad?". The officer can say the refusal to answer questions creates reasonable doubt as to whether the PR has maintained his status.

Again, people in here can ask "what's the bid deal?" all day long, but I personally don't like the idea of having to disclose to a CBSA officer details of my private life during trips outside Canada. If you're a citizen, you can just tell the officer it's none of his business and there's nothing he'll be able to do to get back at you. End of story.

As a citizen, I can assure you that the CBSA agents regularly ask me about the purpose of my trips abroad, how long I was gone, etc. as well. And, I can also assure you that if I refused to answer, I would face similar repercussions as any PR in that we would both be allowed to enter the country but only after an arduous questioning period. It's not like any citizen can tell the CBSA to get lost and just waltz into Canada.

 

[meyakanor]

What I was talking about is the difference in treatment at the border between a PR and a citizen. They may not outright deny a PR entry but, as you correctly assert, they are certainly within their right to initiate a request for what's called an A44 report -- a request for an investigation into whether you have maintained your PR status. A CBSA officer can initiate this just for a PR refusing to answer personal questions such as "what was the purpose of the trip abroad?". The officer can say the refusal to answer questions creates reasonable doubt as to whether the PR has maintained his status.

The difference in treatment may be there, but my point stands: a PR has a right to enter Canada (which you said they did not), and even the border agent has no right to take it away or refuse a PR entry, even if the agent, due to balance of probability, has established that you may be inadmissible. The most they can do is report you, but then you would have still been allowed entry to Canada, and appeal the report. You will be allowed to be in Canada while waiting for the hearing, and still enjoy the same benefits as other PRs. You may end up losing your PR after the hearing, and your PR may be revoked, but that's already besides the point.

And I concede, a PR can't just tell a border agent to 'go to hell and mind your own business'.

 

[OrangeCup]

We have reached over 2300 signatures over the last 96 hours. Our next goal is 5000 signatures.
Those wishing to volunteer , please sign up at : FightTheBillC24 @ outlook.com

Thanks,
Alex

We really need to achieve the goal of 5000 signatures guys. There are already people who volunteered to communicate to MPs and media. All you have to do is to sign the petition. There are thousands of foreign workers and international students who are being affected by this new law on this forums. I believe we can get the required amount of signature very fast.
We are willing to do the leg work, all we need from you is to sign the petition if you believe in the cause.
thank you

 

[marcus66502]

As a citizen, I can assure you that the CBSA agents regularly ask me about the purpose of my trips abroad, how long I was gone, etc. as well.

I'm not disagreeing with this. In fact, I already said that I've witnessed this myself. I've stood in line at secondary inspection behind Canadian citizens who were getting grilled by CBSA officers about the details of their trip, in spite of them presenting Canadian passports.

And, I can also assure you that if I refused to answer, I would face similar repercussions as any PR in that we would both be allowed to enter the country but only after an arduous questioning period.

This is where I have to disagree I'm afraid. If you refuse to answer, they can make your life difficult but only if you allow them to by not asserting your rights. You should politely tell them that they have no legal basis to hold you for refusing to answer questions about your private life, and that if they do that you will file the proper complaints against CBSA.

They ARE allowed to ask questions, but only as they relate to confirming your identity and citizenship (obviously in order for them to let you into the country as a citizen, they have to make sure that you're actually a citizen). Once they're past this stage, they really have no business prying into your personal life. Yes, they do it all the time and yes they get away with it but it's only because citizens voluntarily comply. As a citizen, if I felt they were starting to probe into my personal life after I've established my citizenship I would say something like "Umm excuse me officer, is there any doubt about my citizenship? Because as far as I can tell that's the only thing that concerns you, and I don't see how details of my private life are relevant to that determination."

It's not like any citizen can tell the CBSA to get lost and just waltz into Canada.

I wasn't suggesting anyone ignore their clearance authority and waltz into Canada. They do have a job to do and that is to confirm your citizenship before they clear you for entry. So assist them with that. But you're within your rights to insist that they limit their questions to just what's necessary to confirm your citizenship. There can be no repercussions from THAT.

 

[Canadian2007]

You are talking like an ACLU attorney. This is not US.I hope you get what I am trying to say..
BTW getting even 10000 signature wont get you nowhere with this petition. Not trying to dishearten you but telling you like it is. good luck!