Work in USA; travel back to Canada at weekends; residence time calculation

[screech339]

Both your Options 4 & 5 include 1,095 days (3 years) of residence.

Option 4: 365 + 184 + 182 + 182 + 182 = 1,095
Option 5: 365 + 365 + 122 + 122 + 121 = 1,095

How many years has 1,095 days? 1,095 / 365 = 3

Option 4: 365 + 184 + 182 + 182 + 182 = 1,095 Residence for 2 years only (more than 50% inside Canada)
Option 5: 365 + 365 + 122 + 122 + 121 = 1,095 Residence for 2 years only (more than 50% inside Canada)

Where the logic in qualifying for 3 years towards citizenship when you resided in Canada for 2 years?

Hence the reason why I say 3/5 rule would make Canadian Citizenship too easy to qualify.

One can live in Canada for 2 straight years and then leave and come back for 4 accumulative "vacation" months in a given year visiting Canada for next 3 years to qualify for citizenship. This is a prime example of "scamming" the system. No difference from someone collecting "welfare" or "EI" while getting paid cash. Both cases are "scamming" the system legally.

 

[links18]

Just because it will become legal, doesn't make it right.

Federal Expropriation Law allows itself to take land from you for public interests. Are you okay with federal government taking your land or your relative's land to build a high speed train or pipeline? It is all legal.

While abortion is legal, I suppose sex-selective abortion is also legal?

So quit hiding behind your "It's all legal" mantra. It's easy to say "It's all legal" until it happens to you.

There are many of things that are legal that I don't like. If it were up to me, I'd ban tobacco. But the fact of the matter is you can't call something legal a "scam." The law delimits what people can and can't do and what they can expect as the result of certain actions. If the law says you can become a citizen, while living abroad--no scam has been perpetrated. You don't have to like it. You don't have to think its good policy. You may even want to law to be changed (AGAIN!), but there is no scam.

 

[screech339]

There are many of things that are legal that I don't like. If it were up to me, I'd ban tobacco. But the fact of the matter is you can't call something legal a "scam." The law delimits what people can and can't do and what they can expect as the result of certain actions. If the law says you can become a citizen, while living abroad--no scam has been perpetrated. You don't have to like it. You don't have to think its good policy. You may even want to law to be changed (AGAIN!), but there is no scam.

So you will admit that 3/5 rule can be "abused" to obtain citizenship?

 

[ImmiToCanada]

Yes, under C24, 183 minimum day per qualification year should be met. This is exactly what makes it hard to qualify for citizenship while working in USA. Some people will also say it is unfair since anyone landing after July 2nd can never make the year in which they landed to qualify for citizenship.

When the new bill C6 comes into effect, the requirement 'Applicants had to be physically present in Canada for 183 days in four out of the six years preceding their application.' will be removed. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2017/06/bill_c-6_receivesroyalassent0.html

Is that all you got for a comeback? Are you saying Option 4 and 5 can't be done?

It doesn't change the fact that under 3/5 rule one can qualify for citizenship with less than 50% of the time spent inside Canada. Hence the reason 183 minimum day was added in C-24. To prevent this obvious glaring flaw that one can get citizenship with only 2 years of residency in Canada.

 

[screech339]

Yes, under C24, 183 minimum day per qualification year should be met. This is exactly what makes it hard to qualify for citizenship while working in USA. Some people will also say it is unfair since anyone landing after July 2nd can never make the year in which they landed to qualify for citizenship.

When the new bill C6 comes into effect, the requirement 'Applicants had to be physically present in Canada for 183 days in four out of the six years preceding their application.' will be removed. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2017/06/bill_c-6_receivesroyalassent0.html

And I am not seeing what the problem is. If you are residing in US, then the year in which you are NOT a resident of Canada, those days should not count towards citizenship. Unfortunately with minimum 183 days removed, you can qualify for Canadian citizenship while being a "resident" of a foreign country. This is an example of someone wanting to have their cake and eat it too. It is unfortunate that the Liberals wants Canada Citizenship to treated like a doormat and a stepping stone much like 3/4 rule was.

 

[screech339]

Yes, under C24, 183 minimum day per qualification year should be met. This is exactly what makes it hard to qualify for citizenship while working in USA. Some people will also say it is unfair since anyone landing after July 2nd can never make the year in which they landed to qualify for citizenship.

When the new bill C6 comes into effect, the requirement 'Applicants had to be physically present in Canada for 183 days in four out of the six years preceding their application.' will be removed. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/news/2017/06/bill_c-6_receivesroyalassent0.html

BTW: Anyone landed after July 2nd can still get their minimum 183 days 4 years after they landed. To claim that PR has to wait an extra year due to minimum 183 is completely false. Run the online calendar landing say Dec 1 2013 and applying for citizenship Dec 2 2017. You will notice that while you don't met 183 days in 2013, you will meet 183 days in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 the year you are applying. 4 years of meeting 183 days. 4 years after PR landing.

 

[ImmiToCanada]

Hi screech339,

Thank you for your information about car import and TN visa.

I found a couple of people in the comments of this article http://thisbeautifuldayblog.com/import-car-from-canada-to-usa/# working on TN visa and trying to import their car into USA. It seems that importing a car to USA will generally not hurt TN visa approval.

Funny that I was able to hold two driver's licence. Ontario Licence and NJ Licence. When I applied for NJ Licence, they never asked me to surrender my Ontario Licence for NJ Licence. I didn't import my car into the US since there was a lien on my car. You are not allowed to be able to import the car into either country if there is a lien on it, payments on the car as an example. Thus my car was still registered under Canadian address. When I finally moved back to Canada, I didn't have to "import" my car. One of the main reason I didn't want to import the car into US was that I was on a TN temporary work visa. The TN visa dictates that I must maintain Canadian residency. By importing the car into US, the US border agent could interpret that action as "permanently" moving to US, thus violate the TN visa rule. I asked this question to the US border agent on one of my trips to US. The border agent said that while he doesn't view "importing" the car into US as violating TN rules, he did say that he has no control over how OTHER border agents could interpret the rules. Since there was a possibility of losing TN visa due to importing car, I didn't want to chance it.

 

[matrivg2507]

Hi Everyone,

I am currently crossing the US Canada border (through Peace Arch border situated in Blaine, WA) to accruing days to maintain my Canadian PR status. Have a few questions to clarify in this regard.

1. I have once used the NEXUS card to enter Canada but this entry record was missing in the CBSA provided Travel History Report. All entries made using the PR card were correctly recorded. However, the entry made using the NEXUS card was missing. Therefore, just wanted to confirm Does CBSA also records entries made using the NEXUS card? If yes, how can I get them in the travel report?
2. I have started using the NEXUS for an entry in the US (i.e. an exit from Canada). Does CBSA records the exit from Canada made using the NEXUS card?
3. In the travel report provided by the CBSA, all entries and exits were recorded in the Eastern Time (ET). Since I am in a Pacific Time (PT), just wanted to clarify which time zone is considered by the IRCC (when someone apply for the PR renewal/Citizenship) so that I can plan my travel time accordingly?

Would be really helpful if you could please clarify above. Thank you!