Toward Understanding Bill C-6 to Amend Citizenship Act; new 3/5 rule plus

[torontosm]

if the bill c 24 is not passed, we do not need to face the situation we have right now.

If the Cons hadn't expanded immigration, you may not have gotten PR in the first place. What's your point?

 

[blackwine]

Bill c-24 was passed in a democratic country, which you chose to immigrate to. the law is the law. i don't like it either but i already have waited close to a year more. it's not the end of the world. there are more important things to worry about.

Yes, Law is Law, but is Conservative push to pass this bill C-24, right?
Yes, I choose to immigrate to a democratic country, but also I choose to immigrate to a immigration friendly country.

 

[screech339]

Yes, Law is Law, but is Conservative push to pass this bill C-24, right?
Yes, I choose to immigrate to a democratic country, but also I choose to immigrate to a immigration friendly country.

So by expanding immigration, it is by definition a immigration friendly country. If Canada was truly not an immigration country, the government would have surely cut down on immigration by many folds. So which is it?

It appears that you already came to an immigration friendly country.

 

[canadasucks]

So by expanding immigration, it is by definition a immigration friendly country. If Canada was truly not an immigration country, the government would have surely cut down on immigration by many folds. So which is it?

For example, you want to have as much as possible servants to serve your family, in order to recruit servants, you told them would be the full members of your family after 3 years, but after 3 years, you don't really want, then you said after 4 years, then after 4 years, you accepted their requests to become full members but you said you need to discuss the matter with your spouse and children, it may take years. But in your heart do you really want them to be the full members of your family, have same rights as your spouse and children after 3 years or 4 years or never?

 

[Naheulbeuck]

Is that seriously how you see life? Through the eyes of the master and his servants?

No wonder you are bitter...

 

[canadasucks]

Is that seriously how you see life? Through the eyes of the master and his servants?

No wonder you are bitter...

The story may be harsh, but that's indeed the logic behind many of politicians although they must show their political correctness in public.

 

[screech339]

For example, you want to have as much as possible servants to serve your family, in order to recruit servants, you told them would be the full members of your family after 3 years, but after 3 years, you don't really want, then you said after 4 years, then after 4 years, you accepted their requests to become full members but you said you need to discuss the matter with your spouse and children, it may take years. But in your heart do you really want them to be the full members of your family, have same rights as your spouse and children after 3 years or 4 years or never?

Using your harsh example of master and servants as comparison, it is an employer/employee relationship, not a family/close friend relationship. We all know that friendship/family relationship and work relationship don't mix. So let keep them separate, shall we?

In an employer/employee relationship, the employer (Canada), he / she can only offer a job, nothing else. The applicant (potential PR) can accept the job out of free will. Once paperwork is completed and signed (opened door to immigration), employee (now PR) can keep said job as long as he/she wants provided that he/she behaves (Maintain RO) and conducts job as expected. If not, employee is fired (Loses PR status for federal conviction). An employer (Canada) would never offer a permanent lifetime job (citizenship) in order to incite employees to come to work, only offer potential long term employment.

Now we go to the friend relationship. If employee (PR) wants to be part of the employer’s personal inner circle of family friends outside of work environment (Canadian citizenship), the employer had set some rules to become part of it. After all it is his/her personal life, his/her choice, his/her rules. So the employee gladly accepted the rules, followed them, and become part of the inner core of family friends (become Naturalized Canadian). After some time, years go by, employer notices that despite having a lot of close friends (Naturalized Canadians) in the inner core, some of them were leaving to go work for other employers (other countries). Even some of the close friends were complaining to employer how easy it is to join the inner circle (3/4 with pre-pr time) and how soon the “friends” have left after joining. (Leaving Canada after acquiring citizenship), abusing the honour of becoming part inner friends (privilege to citizenship). So employer decided to tighten up the rules.

Now being an equal opportunity employer, he/she cannot show favouritism between employees that still wants to be part of his/her inner circle. So the new rules (4/6 rule) applies to all employees (PRs) regardless of how long they worked (Length of being PR). Employer could have made the rules come into effect immediately but instead gave ample notice in an employee meeting, when the new rules will come into effect.

 

[blackwine]

Using your harsh example of master and servants as comparison, it is an employer/employee relationship, not a family/close friend relationship. We all know that friendship/family relationship and work relationship don't mix. So let keep them separate, shall we?

In an employer/employee relationship, the employer (Canada), he / she can only offer a job, nothing else. The applicant (potential PR) can accept the job out of free will. Once paperwork is completed and signed (opened door to immigration), employee (now PR) can keep said job as long as he/she wants provided that he/she behaves (Maintain RO) and conducts job as expected. If not, employee is fired (Loses PR status for federal conviction). An employer (Canada) would never offer a permanent lifetime job (citizenship) in order to incite employees to come to work, only offer potential long term employment.

Now we go to the friend relationship. If employee (PR) wants to be part of the employer’s personal inner circle of family friends outside of work environment (Canadian citizenship), the employer had set some rules to become part of it. After all it is his/her personal life, his/her choice, his/her rules. So the employee gladly accepted the rules, followed them, and become part of the inner core of family friends (become Naturalized Canadian). After some time, years go by, employer notices that despite having a lot of close friends (Naturalized Canadians) in the inner core, some of them were leaving to go work for other employers (other countries). Even some of the close friends were complaining to employer how easy it is to join the inner circle (3/4 with pre-pr time) and how soon the “friends” have left after joining. (Leaving Canada after acquiring citizenship), abusing the honour of becoming part inner friends (privilege to citizenship). So employer decided to tighten up the rules.

Now being an equal opportunity employer, he/she cannot show favouritism between employees that still wants to be part of his/her inner circle. So the new rules (4/6 rule) applies to all employees (PRs) regardless of how long they worked (Length of being PR). Employer could have made the rules come into effect immediately but instead gave ample notice in an employee meeting, when the new rules will come into effect.

First of all, PR and Citizenship, the major different is the right of vote. in your case, should be the employee become the shareholder.
So before we apply a job, the company said, we have "stock option" here, after you become a employee for 3 years, (also each day you work as contractor for this company could count as half day). you could become the shareholder of the company. this is a potential benefit when you choose your employer.
After 2 years, your employer said we are thinking make some change, from now on. all the stock option change to 4 years, even the contact been signed. We are thinking it is unfair because the employer break the contact. So, if your employer turn to you, said I made the rule, your salary will not increase by each year, but every three, whats your feeling?
Fine, the employer could make the rules base on their interest. I can understand. they have right to make the rule, and I have the right to make complain. Because I do contribution to the company (Pay Tax). So I do not see any problem with complain.

 

[torontosm]

First of all, PR and Citizenship, the major different is the right of vote. in your case, should be the employee become the shareholder.
So before we apply a job, the company said, we have "stock option" here, after you become a employee for 3 years, (also each day you work as contractor for this company could count as half day). you could become the shareholder of the company. this is a potential benefit when you choose your employer.
After 2 years, your employer said we are thinking make some change, from now on. all the stock option change to 4 years, even the contact been signed. We are thinking it is unfair because the employer break the contact. So, if your employer turn to you, said I made the rule, your salary will not increase by each year, but every three, whats your feeling?
Fine, the employer could make the rules base on their interest. I can understand. they have right to make the rule, and I have the right to make complain. Because I do contribution to the company (Pay Tax). So I do not see any problem with complain.

Do you have a signed contract that says you will become a citizen after living in Canada for 3 years? Of course you don't. So, your analogy is not applicable.

Instead, when immigrating to Canada, you agreed to abide by and respect the laws of the land. Laws change, and you must accept them as you originally agreed to.

 

[screech339]

First of all, PR and Citizenship, the major different is the right of vote. in your case, should be the employee become the shareholder.
So before we apply a job, the company said, we have "stock option" here, after you become a employee for 3 years, (also each day you work as contractor for this company could count as half day). you could become the shareholder of the company. this is a potential benefit when you choose your employer.
After 2 years, your employer said we are thinking make some change, from now on. all the stock option change to 4 years, even the contact been signed. We are thinking it is unfair because the employer break the contact. So, if your employer turn to you, said I made the rule, your salary will not increase by each year, but every three, whats your feeling?
Fine, the employer could make the rules base on their interest. I can understand. they have right to make the rule, and I have the right to make complain. Because I do contribution to the company (Pay Tax). So I do not see any problem with complain.

The difference with your example is that you signed a contract for citizenship as part of the job employment. That is not the case here. Your example would be a good example if you, in fact, has documentation from Canada of a signed agreement promising you citizenship in return for you coming to Canada for PR. The only signed contract between you and Canada was the PR status. This comparison doesn't apply.

 

[blackwine]

Do you have a signed contract that says you will become a citizen after living in Canada for 3 years? Of course you don't. So, your analogy is not applicable.

Instead, when immigrating to Canada, you agreed to abide by and respect the laws of the land. Laws change, and you must accept them as you originally agreed to.

What I said is potential benefit, which one of the thing you may consider or not. also it is an option.
also Laws change, you also can fight. ;D if you not speak out, if you do not fight, the bad law, will impact more people.

 

[blackwine]

The difference with your example is that you signed a contract for citizenship as part of the job employment. That is not the case here. Your example would be a good example if you, in fact, has documentation from Canada of a signed agreement promising you citizenship in return for you coming to Canada for PR. The only signed contract between you and Canada was the PR status. This comparison doesn't apply.

im not the one bring the employment in this discussion.

 

[Orire]

Bill c-24 was passed in a democratic country, which you chose to immigrate to. the law is the law. i don't like it either but i already have waited close to a year more. it's not the end of the world. there are more important things to worry about.

Law is law? So you will support any law even if it is against the principle of justice administration?
Are you not concerned about C-24 or you have not read the contents and meditate on them. The law is tyrant in nature and still baffles me how an advanced country like Canada would have descended so low to a stone age ideology. Leaving critical decision to the hands on individuals that can made decision based on moods and yet you will have no option of appeal. Creating two class of citizen, an act that can potentially lead to social depression. Please tell me what was wrong with 3/4 rules that 4/6 has really addressed. CONs simply lost focus and brought irrelevant items to the law.

Individual knows why s/he wants the citizenship faster and owns nobody explanations. If i cannot encourage someone, i would rather not say anything atleast not to add to the worries.

 

[vnexpress]

So the Bill C 6 will not pass before coming Friday July 1 and wont be made on time for Canada Day it looks

 

[emamabd]

So the Bill C 6 will not pass before coming Friday July 1 and wont be made on time for Canada Day it looks

yes...seems a bit early for us to celebrate. I was about to buy the flags and the red/white T-shirts with the leaf :-X