Canada Immigration and Visa Discussion Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Canada Immigration Topics > Canadian Citizenship
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Changes to Citizenship Process in 2014
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Changes to Citizenship Process in 2014
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2021222324 37>
Author
Message
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
eileen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 388 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eileen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Feb 2014 at 9:01am

I don't agree about "red herring" opinion though I agree with many other elements of the below post, but I do not post this to convince Dpenabill. His opinion is his opinion.

But to give other well-informed (and non-anonymous) perspectives on the matter: From former Director General of Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada Andrew Griffith's blog: 

"Audrey Macklin and Lorne Waldman of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, in addition to their previous criticism of the revocation provisions, note additional problems with differential treatment of Canadian-born vs naturalized Canadians:

The provision also holds out the implicit threat that if a naturalized Canadian citizen takes up a job somewhere else (as many Canadians do), or leaves Canada to study abroad (as many Canadians do), the government may move to strip the person of citizenship because they misrepresented their intention to reside in Canada when they were granted citizenship. Whether the government acts on the threat is not the issue; it is enough that people will be made insecure and apprehensive by the possibility that the government may arbitrarily decide to launch revocation proceedings against them if they leave Canada too soon, or remain away too long. That’s not a way to foster a citizenship of commitment. That’s how to foster a citizenship of fear.

I had viewed this provision as more symbolic than enforceable, but Macklin and Waldman have a point as this could be deemed fraud should a naturalized citizen leave Canada for professional or personal reasons. CIC may not today be able to enforce such a provision. However, as the government implements its plans for exit controls, this may change. As many Canadians, both naturally-born and naturalized, live abroad, often for reasons that most would consider valid (i.e., not just "citizens of convenience"), this provision bears greater scrutiny.
Resources for Future Canadians & their Advocates: http://residencequestionnaire.wordpress.com
Back to Top
bjones View Drop Down
Average Member
Average Member


Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 219 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bjones Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Feb 2014 at 9:42am
Originally posted by dpenabill dpenabill wrote:


The real worry is that just due to this or that circumstance, this requirement is going to make the process dramatically more difficult for a significant number of legitimate applicants, including in particular those whose circumstances do not neatly fit inside the immigrate-and-settle-in-Canada-for-life cubby hole. PRs who are still obtaining degrees and certificates, which may require extended time in a university outside Canada, for example. PRs who are single and young and without family in Canada, such that all their family ties are still abroad, for example; such applicants may easily fall into the suspect lack-of-intent category regardless of their genuine goals of making a life for themselves in Canada. PRs with elderly parents and other back home situations requiring a sidetrip on their path to settling in Canada for life, will be particularly vulnerable in the application process which includes an intent requirement.

I just scratched the surface in previous posts about some evidentiary circumstances which can raise red flags and thus cause an applicant to be given RQ, exposed to more thorough and intrusive scrutiny, resulting in delays. This intent element opens the doors of inquiry wide, wide, wide. Those dragged into the more intrusive and difficult and lengthy processing will almost certainly include a significant portion, if not majority, who are legitimate and genuine.


Thanks for bringing this up. I think this is a pretty wide net affecting a significant fraction of PRs. Also, it looks like the discussions / conclusions we had about "centralized life" in Canada and severing ties abroad [link] may not be valid if this intent clause is introduced.  University students are affected. Young+single professionals who are probably in theirs 20s and 30s, trying to establish themselves in their careers are affected. It's hard to imagine that this population does not have any ties abroad. So, if these people sign an "intent to reside" and if given an RQ, it looks like they will probably be subject to a high degree of scrutiny. Just showing the required APP with direct objective evidence may not be good enough as an RQ response. One could always argue that there was/is no "intent to reside" in all the above examples? Even if these people were not given an RQ and were granted citizenship, they may face problems in the future if they leave Canada for some reason as one could always argue that they did not have any intentions to reside in Canada when they signed the application (young, single, no family in Canada, student, business travels outside Canada, the list goes on and on...) 


On the other hand, we know that other countries (USA, AUS) have similar clauses but I don't think PRs and citizens in those countries worry too much about this clause. Maybe the same is true for Canada. Maybe this is not such a big issue? 





Edited by bjones - 12 Feb 2014 at 11:34am
Back to Top
bjones View Drop Down
Average Member
Average Member


Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 219 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bjones Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Feb 2014 at 11:56am
Originally posted by eileen eileen wrote:

"Audrey Macklin and Lorne Waldman of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, in addition to their previous criticism of the revocation provisions, note additional problems with differential treatment of Canadian-born vs naturalized Canadians:

The provision also holds out the implicit threat that if a naturalized Canadian citizen takes up a job somewhere else (as many Canadians do), or leaves Canada to study abroad (as many Canadians do), the government may move to strip the person of citizenship because they misrepresented their intention to reside in Canada when they were granted citizenship.  

 

But, as we discussed before, isn't it true that they have to disprove "intent to reside" if they want to strip the person of citizenship, and that this cannot be done based entirely on what the person does after becoming a citizen? Sure, if there are facts that could be used to disprove someone's intentions to reside at the time of signing the application and/or during the application process and/or at the time when this person was a PR, then that's a different issue. So, I don't really see the differential treatment of Canadian-born vs naturalized Canadians...



Edited by bjones - 12 Feb 2014 at 12:06pm
Back to Top
ski View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Forum Moderator

Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 564 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Feb 2014 at 12:05pm
bjones, to answer this question let's ask to whom the Minister would need to disprove anything.

If the stripping of the citizenship required an adversarial proceeding between the Minister and the citizen in court, then yes the Minister would need to convince the court of their point.

But since Minister can exercise its discretion and strip citizens of citizenship on their own, the only person Minister needs to convince is themselves.


It is not the criminal proceeding where the prosecutor needs to prove the guilt, etc. to a certain standard.

It is not even the adversarial proceeding where the Minister would need to be "more convincing" than the other party (citizen).

It is simply one person's discretion, and that person is the Minister.

And his right for discretion" ("will") is indeed written in this bill.


Edited by ski - 12 Feb 2014 at 12:14pm
Back to Top
bjones View Drop Down
Average Member
Average Member


Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 219 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bjones Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Feb 2014 at 12:13pm

So this means the Minister can just pick naturalized citizens at random (say), check if the citizen is still residing in Canada or has taken up a job outside Canada, and if the latter is true, then make up his mind that the citizen had/has no intentions to reside in Canada, and then just like that make a decision to revoke his/her citizenship? I really find it hard to believe that this is a possibility if the bill becomes law, but maybe that's just me....

 


Originally posted by ski ski wrote:

bjones, to answer this question let's ask to whom the Minister would need to disprove anything.

If the stripping of the citizenship would require an adversarial proceeding between the Minister and the citizen in court, then yes the Minister would need to convince the court of their point.

But since Minister can exercise its discretion and strip citizens of citizenship on their own, the only person Minister needs to convince is themselves.


It is not the criminal proceeding where the prosecutor needs to prove the guilt, etc. to a certain standard.

It is not even the adversarial proceeding where the Minister would need to be "more convincing" than the other party (citizen).

It is simply one person's discretion, and that person is the Minister.

And his right for discretion" ("will") is indeed written in this bill.
Back to Top
ski View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Forum Moderator

Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 564 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ski Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Feb 2014 at 12:18pm
Originally posted by bjones bjones wrote:

So this means the Minister can just pick naturalized citizens at random (say), check if the citizen is still residing in Canada or has taken up a job outside Canada, and if the latter is true, then make up his mind that the citizen had/has no intentions to reside in Canada, and then just like that make a decision to revoke his/her citizenship?
Precisely, that is the whole point!

And all arguments against this interpretation are generally based on the concept that "CIC cannot be so inhumane".

But the bill was written and worded in this very specific way.

And CIC is reserving the right to be "so inhumane".

And it will be, whenever the Minister wishes so.

***

And we don't need to go too far for examples.

Look at the present law. It requires that the person was "resident" in Canada for 3 years out of 4.

And "resident" generally means "main place of residence".

The whole idea of 1095 days was meant as a strict test for exceptions.

Such as "when we cannot determine where the main home of a person with five different homes is, let's simply count days".

But the reality is - today nobody will give citizenship to, say, a marine officer who is resident in Canada for 3 years out of 3 but is on overseas trips 10 months a year. They will say "you've been in the country for 180 days - go the hell out of here and return when you have 1095" - which means "never".

While in reality the guy is resident in Canada and nowhere else.

And you cannot argue against it - the onus of "proof" is on the applicant. 

Any CJ can say: "Sorry I personally was not convinced", and the court will uphold it as a possible outcome, because there's no judicial standard on what needs to be done to "convince" a sceptic CJ.

This is how CIC already created the most perverse of any possible interpretations of the existing standard.

Why would anyone expect them not to use this excellent right of stripping anyone of their citizenship after they wrote it so precisely and clearly in the new law?


Edited by ski - 12 Feb 2014 at 12:26pm
Back to Top
coldnomad View Drop Down
Junior Member
Junior Member


Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 92 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coldnomad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Feb 2014 at 12:48pm
Originally posted by bjones bjones wrote:

So this means the Minister can just pick naturalized citizens at random (say), check if the citizen is still residing in Canada or has taken up a job outside Canada, and if the latter is true, then make up his mind that the citizen had/has no intentions to reside in Canada, and then just like that make a decision to revoke his/her citizenship? I really find it hard to believe that this is a possibility if the bill becomes law, but maybe that's just me....

 


Yes, that's what it means. It is not about whether such a scenario is likely to happen. It's about that it's possible for it to happen. There is CAPABILITY. There is no system of checks and balances in the proposed law. So all you're doing is relying on the benevolence and rationality of the Minister.


Are you guaranteed to have a rational, humane and benevolent Minister at all times? I don't think so. Just look at Toronto city hall. 

Back to Top
canuck25 View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group

Forum Moderator

Joined: 09 Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 831 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote canuck25 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Feb 2014 at 12:50pm


Originally posted by ski ski wrote:





Originally posted by bjones bjones wrote:

<span style="line-height: 1.4;">So this means the Minister can just pick naturalized citizens at random (say), check if the citizen is still residing in Canada or has taken up a job outside Canada, and if the latter is true, then make up his mind that the citizen had/has no intentions to reside in Canada, and then just like that make a decision to revoke his/her citizenship?</span>
Precisely, that is the whole point!

And all arguments against this interpretation are generally based on the concept that "CIC cannot be so inhumane".

But the bill was written and worded in this very specific way.

And CIC is reserving the right to be "so inhumane".

And it will be, whenever the Minister wishes so.
The minister will need to demonstrate that indeed there was an element of fraud perpetrated by the citizen. There needs to be a clear intent to leave Canada during the time while the application is in process (for example, if someone applies for citizenship, yet applies for PR in the US while their application is in process). If there is no evidence, the minister cannot do anything. Once you become a naturalized citizen your citizenship will not be taken away, unless there are issues with your application. 

What's scary is that the CIC can retroactively scrutinize apps it had already approved and look for grounds to prove fraud. I can imagine this will apply to extreme cases and for the most part, it's not an objective of the CIC or the minister to go on a retroactive witchhunt to simply revoke citizenships they had already granted.

***
Originally posted by ski ski wrote:

And we don't need to go too far for examples.

Look at the present law. It requires that the person was "resident" in Canada for 3 years out of 4.
The law requires physical presence in the country. Residence also implies ties to the country - the two are not the same. 

Originally posted by ski ski wrote:

But the reality is - today nobody will give citizenship to, say, a marine officer who is resident in Canada for 3 years out of 3 but is on overseas trips 10 months a year. They will say "you've been in the country for 180 days - go the hell out of here and return when you have 1095" - which means "never".
 
This is not true, since service in the Canadian armed forces will count towards eligibility. If however you are referring to a civil merchant marine (or say, airline pilots who fly for Air Canada), then you are correct. Their time outside of Canada while performing duties for a Canadian employer does not count towards their physical presence requirement for Citizenship. However, these absences - while employed for a Canadian employer - do count towards one's PR obligation.  

Originally posted by ski ski wrote:

<span style="line-height: 1.4;">Any CJ can say: "Sorry I personally was not convinced", and the court will uphold it as a possible outcome, because there's no judicial standard on what needs to be done to "convince" a sceptic CJ.
This is not true, as judges - as of now - have some discretion as to determining whether an applicant has centralized his life in Canada, even if (s)he does not meet the physical presence test. Judges tend to approve applications if ties are established, however, it's the CIC that has been appealing favourable decisions by judges in such cases. </span>



Edited by canuck25 - 17 May 2014 at 1:23am
Back to Top
coldnomad View Drop Down
Junior Member
Junior Member


Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 92 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote coldnomad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Feb 2014 at 12:54pm
Originally posted by bjones bjones wrote:


But, as we discussed before, isn't it true that they have to disprove "intent to reside" if they want to strip the person of citizenship, and that this cannot be done based entirely on what the person does after becoming a citizen? Sure, if there are facts that could be used to disprove someone's intentions to reside at the time of signing the application and/or during the application process and/or at the time when this person was a PR, then that's a different issue. So, I don't really see the differential treatment of Canadian-born vs naturalized Canadians...



There's a very simple difference. Does a Canadian-born citizen have to worry about a possibility, however remote, of losing his citizenship, should he move overseas indefinitely at some point of his life? NO. Does a second-class citizen have to worry about that? YES. Thus, are these two citizenship categories treated equally? NO. That's all there's to it.

Eileen mentioned that this proposal cheapens the value of citizenship. I disagree. It doesn't cheapen the value of Canadian-born citizenship. It cheapens the value of naturalized citizenship. But more importantly, it divides Canadian citizenship into two separate classes -- FIRST and SECOND.


Edited by coldnomad - 12 Feb 2014 at 12:55pm
Back to Top
bjones View Drop Down
Average Member
Average Member


Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 219 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bjones Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Feb 2014 at 1:05pm
Originally posted by coldnomad coldnomad wrote:

Originally posted by bjones bjones wrote:


But, as we discussed before, isn't it true that they have to disprove "intent to reside" if they want to strip the person of citizenship, and that this cannot be done based entirely on what the person does after becoming a citizen? Sure, if there are facts that could be used to disprove someone's intentions to reside at the time of signing the application and/or during the application process and/or at the time when this person was a PR, then that's a different issue. So, I don't really see the differential treatment of Canadian-born vs naturalized Canadians...



There's a very simple difference. Does a Canadian-born citizen have to worry about a possibility, however remote, of losing his citizenship, should he move overseas indefinitely at some point of his life? NO.
 

A naturalized citizen does not have to worry about losing his/her citizenship based on his/her actions after s/he became a citizen (but we seem to have differing opinions on this issue). In this sense, there is no differential treatment of Canadian-born vs naturalized Canadians. But the naturalized citizen was a PR before s/he became a citizen and if there is any proof of misrepresentation/fraud during the time s/he was a PR, then that could be used to strip him/her of his/her citizenship. Again, there is no difference between a Canadian-born citizen and a naturalized citizen from the point of time when the PR became a citizen and based on factors/actions after the PR became a citizen. What am I missing here?




Edited by bjones - 12 Feb 2014 at 1:11pm
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2021222324 37>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down