Any thoughts on this? opinions from both ends; Sponsor and Sponsored Spouse

[niloogoogooli]

good old tax money

It doesn't really change anything for legit couples planning to live in Canada, so i wouldn't worry too much.

I am curious to who is going to check up on this though, seems like a lot of work for an already overworked CIC

 

[claire_09]

In this situation I am a sponsored person.

However if I put myself into the sponsors position for a moment...I am duped into a fake marriage, shortly after my spouse arrives the relationship breaks down. I dont know the statistics but I assume there are a significant number of people who through either immigration barriers or sheer distance from each other cannot spend extended periods of time together before PR is granted. So this person has scammed me and now they are likely to start making false claims of abuse/neglect to protect their PR status. What if I as the sponsor am being abused by the person I sponsored?

As the sponsored person I sell my home, give up a well paid job, move away from my family and friends to be with the person I love. Potentially for the same reasons above extended periods of time together have been impossible. Same again relationship breaksdown. Through no fault of my own I now have to pack up and return home, unless I want to make false allegations of abuse aginst my sponsor.

There has to be legislation that accounts for the genuine case where despite the best intentions of both parties it does not work out. In my opinion this legislation will not deter the determined fakers, sponsor or sponsored and dont really see the sense in this legislation not being tied into the time period that a sponsor is obliged to making an undertaking for. However neither can we have sponsors insisting on deportation just because they might have had enough of their spouse for whatever reason.

I dont have a categoric answer, but possibly think toughening up on deportation and re-entry rules when there is clear abuse of the system might be a starting point.

 

[figlove2010]

...Im soo loving this....Appreciate everyone's opinion... nice to see from everyone's point of view...you all have some excellent points that i didnt even think of.. my knowledge is broadening daily

Thanks all for sharing...please keeping on sharing, any thoughts regarding this ......

 

[moochops]

With all respect to the Calgary herald what they are reporting is not 100% accurate and differs from what the CIC states. CIC states rule comes in to effect 25th October 2012 whereas the Herald states all applications after October 26th 2012 (I assume this means October 27th 2012). As the CIC does not mention 2 years of marriage it merely says 2 years of relationship and I quote.

"The new regulations apply to spouses or partners in a relationship of two years or less and who have no children in common with their sponsor at the time they submit their sponsorship application"

So in respect to the Herald their article is not factual.

Yes I just read the CIC bulletin, apologies. So it would seem that if you have been together for 2 years OR have children (married or not) then the rules don't apply to you. but if the relationship is less than 2 years again married or not and you have NO kids, then the rules apply to you that you have to - once being granted PR - prove a further 2 years of a marriage like relationship.

 

[amikety]

It would seem silly to treat someone that has dated for five years, lived together for three and a half, but married only as two months the same as people that met and got married in six months. Or how children make a relationship any more "real." As statistics list, most pregnancies are unplanned and having a baby doesn't automatically make a relationship real. Although I understand the consideration of keeping both parents around for the kids.

I see this law being abused by the fraudsters and used to maintain threats against abused spouses that were sponsored. The fraudsters know what they are doing. They have message boards and websites just as we do for legitimate immigration. Abusers (of the law and a spouse) are manpulative, whether its towards the law or other people. I see the idea behind this and the value in it... I guess I just don't have faith in the sociopaths out there.

"The best laids plans of mice and men often go astray."

 

[aerogurl87]

Why is it silly?

You use the Family Class sponsorship program to be (re-united) with your loved one, not to take advantage of Canada's Awesomeness.
If all of a sudden your spouse turns into an abusive douche, you book a ticket back. Why stick around?

My thoughts exactly. If my boyfriend turned abusive I'd go straight back home since he is the only reason I want to move to Canada. If CIC got rid of this loophole I'd be happy. I see it creating more problems than solving them.

 

[computergeek]

I had one concern about this when I first read it - specifically, what is the "look back" period here. In other words, could CIC come to you 20 years after you land and say "please prove to us that you were with your sponsor for at least two years". I don't know if that is going to happen - I certainly hope not - but it did seem to be a possibility the way the rule was written.

Upon reading this earlier today, I wondered what happens if one's sponsor gets sick in those first two years and stays in hospital, or convalescence or hospice. Does that constitute the termination of the cohabitation? I cannot imagine how horrible it would be to have one's spouse die of cancer in hospice only to be told a few months later that one must leave Canada as well.

I suspect there will be some interesting case law that comes out of these complex cases in the coming years.

 

[crassy]

I don't really see an issue with it. When I did the immigration process to stay in Australia with my husband, we had to do a temporary PR as well. It lasted two years and then I had to reapply for proper PR. It was just another set of forms, and another sum of money that we had to pay, but it wasn't that big of a deal. We weren't exempt even though we had a child together.

 

[amikety]

Not everyone has a nice home to return to. Sometimes the choice will stay with an abuser for two years or return to a country with few human rights. If the victim is being controlled by the abuser, their access to help (such as information regarding refugee applications) will be limited.

I have concerns about sponsors being falsely accused of abuse.

In a few years, two years might become the new "just landed" time to walk out for those committed to the scam.

 

[figlove2010]

with this new "temporary" PR...would one be able to work and attend school? or would there be limitations? to be honest with all i'm not fully understanding this new law :-\ ARGHHHH sucks after 2 years more paper work and money........... another great point that was made...what if my spouse turns out to be abusive, not physically but emotionally, which cant really be proved....?

 

[figlove2010]

side note.....as much as two people are in love, its still a HUGE chance one is taking to move.....and no one knows the future as to how one may or may not turn out to be...BUT in life we just all pray and hope for the best...

 

[tuyen]

Upon reading this earlier today, I wondered what happens if one's sponsor gets sick in those first two years and stays in hospital, or convalescence or hospice. Does that constitute the termination of the cohabitation? I cannot imagine how horrible it would be to have one's spouse die of cancer in hospice only to be told a few months later that one must leave Canada as well.

The chances of that happening are pretty much zero.

www.cic.gc.ca/english/information/faq/immigrate/sponsor/index.asp#spouses

"What if the sponsor dies before the two-year period is up?"

The condition would no longer apply where there is evidence that the sponsor has died while the sponsored spouse is still subject to the condition, and that the sponsored spouse had lived together in a legitimate relationship with the sponsor up until the time of the sponsor’s death.

I would imagine that if it's obvious that a genuine relationship was taking place, they would certainly not hold it against the sponsored spouse if there was a serious illness involved.

 

[computergeek]

I would imagine that if it's obvious that a genuine relationship was taking place, they would certainly not hold it against the sponsored spouse if there was a serious illness involved.

This is the part about which I'm not so convinced. But no doubt we'll learn in the fullness of time.

 

[legalcitizen]

with this rule in place , if CIC issues conditional prs/visas to spouses in 1-2 months that would be great..I want my wife here and i dont have any problems staying with her for two years before pr..cic already putting lot of stress on genuine couples..so please introduce a new visa category for spouses..a work permit guy can bring his wife without any issue why are you delaying for prs/citizens' spouses applications ?? all other countries (UK, US etc) have special visa categories for spouses..please allow spouses stay in canada and then ask them to apply for pr..that my 2 cents..

regards..

 

[tuyen]

with this rule in place , if CIC issues conditional prs/visas to spouses in 1-2 months that would be great..I want my wife here and i dont have any problems staying with her for two years before pr

This new rule will have no effect on wait times for PR applications. It's simply designed to be a warning/deterrent for future would-be scammers to let them know that their PR status can be revoked if they obtained it through fraud. As far as I'm concerned, this is LONG overdue. If anything, it should be further extended to where anyone convicted of immigration fraud or a violent crime would immediately lose their citizenship and be deported back to wherever the hell they came from.