keesio said:
Agreed. Like I've said in the past, that clause is just for show. It has no real impact. It's like the PNP program where people land in the province that they are supposed to, stay a few months and then leaves for another province. Nothing happens to them.
This was stated in reference to the observation that there is no risk that a citizen might have his or her citizenship revoked because they have left Canada.
I absolutely agree with that. The "intent to reside" clause in the revised requirements for grant citizenship (not yet in force) will have no impact on any citizen, regardless of when citizenship was obtained.
But it should be clearly noted, in contrast, that this clause is not just for show, that it will have a real and very substantial impact.
That impact will be on applicants for citizenship. Once a citizen, no more impact.
The main impact will be on the mobility of applicants while the application is pending. Any extended absence could lead to problems. For sure, any period of residence abroad while the application is pending could result in the individual being ineligible for citizenship. In effect, it is likely to require PRs applying for citizenship to remain in Canada more while the application is pending than it did during the qualifying time period.
Any applicant who takes a job abroad while the application is pending will, for sure, be risking denial based on the "intent to continue to reside in Canada" clause, even if that job is temporary and a significant career ladder step.
Additionally, for those applicants issued RQ, this clause opens the door very, very wide, and also makes material (not just relevant) a wide range of information regarding the applicant's potential ties abroad. Continued ownership of property abroad, for example, will undoubtedly be information CIC requires to be disclosed in RQ. And since this will be material, given the intent clause, failure to disclose any interest in property abroad, especially residential property or interest in a business abroad, would constitute a material misrepresentation.
Actually the scope of what the intent clause makes material is absolutely huge.
From the very beginning, when all the red herring criticisms about the intent clause interfering with the mobility of rights of citizens dominated discussions about the intent clause, I was bothered by how much a distraction that criticism was and how little attention was given to exploring the real impact of this provision. It was disheartening, way back in April 2014, when even the Canadian Bar Association allowed its comments about then Bill C-24 to become sidetracked regarding this red herring, and in the process totally failed to raise or address the real issues, especially as to whether or not this provision could lead to discriminatory exercises of discretion, or as to its impact otherwise on those applying for citizenship who have family continuing to live abroad . . . and so on.
As for how many days I waited to apply after I reached the threshold of 1095 days of actual physical presence:
My own election is probably not instructive or illustrative. I waited nearly two more years. I waited until I had more than 1400 days actual presence and then procrastinated for several more months and by that time my total days present was not increasing since my presence four plus years previous was falling out of the calculation.
I had personal reasons for waiting so long.
