Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[Matt the Aussie]

and what about a random Citizenship officer having the ability to strip any naturalized Canadian off his citizenship and that does not require a warrant nor it can be followed up by a hearing?

and what about the stupid clause of "intend to reside"? isn't it implicit that one applies for citizenship only to intend to reside in that country? the citizenship minister simplemindedly argues in the committe meeting saying that was meant to be a confirmation that applicants have completed the residence requirement in the past and not meant to apply once after the applicant got the citizenship. Either he is pathetically obtuse (which I doubt) or blatantly maneuvering in getting this passed so he can disenfranchise as many Canadians as he can and guess what? No questions can be asked about it because there's no need for a hearing!

I have issues with the residency portion too (I agree it should be longer overall but time before PR should still count), but this "intent to reside" business is sheer lunacy. If and when I qualify for Canadian citizenship, I expect the same responsibilities but also the same rights and freedoms as everyone else who has Canadian citizenship.

If my wife (born in Canada) can decide to move anywhere in the world at any time, why can't I? I don't have any "intent to reside" somewhere else, but the fundamental right of freedom of movement is surely being removed by this? And how on earth does CIC on one end or the applicant on the other prove or disprove an "intent"?

I guess the government wishes to create some sort of Citizen Class B that is never allowed to live anywhere else in the world, when the Charter guarantees this right for all Canadians.

 

[shakeel7]

You are absolutely right. Canadian Charter of Rights guarantees free movement anywhere else in the world.

I have issues with the residency portion too (I agree it should be longer overall but time before PR should still count), but this "intent to reside" business is sheer lunacy. If and when I qualify for Canadian citizenship, I expect the same responsibilities but also the same rights and freedoms as everyone else who has Canadian citizenship.

If my wife (born in Canada) can decide to move anywhere in the world at any time, why can't I? I don't have any "intent to reside" somewhere else, but the fundamental right of freedom of movement is surely being removed by this? And how on earth does CIC on one end or the applicant on the other prove or disprove an "intent"?

I guess the government wishes to create some sort of Citizen Class B that is never allowed to live anywhere else in the world, when the Charter guarantees this right for all Canadians.

 

[CanuckForEver]

I have issues with the residency portion too (I agree it should be longer overall but time before PR should still count), but this "intent to reside" business is sheer lunacy. If and when I qualify for Canadian citizenship, I expect the same responsibilities but also the same rights and freedoms as everyone else who has Canadian citizenship.

If my wife (born in Canada) can decide to move anywhere in the world at any time, why can't I? I don't have any "intent to reside" somewhere else, but the fundamental right of freedom of movement is surely being removed by this? And how on earth does CIC on one end or the applicant on the other prove or disprove an "intent"?

I guess the government wishes to create some sort of Citizen Class B that is never allowed to live anywhere else in the world, when the Charter guarantees this right for all Canadians.

That's right guys, this clause and no appeal/no hearing clause cannot withstand the test of a trial court, let alone the supreme court. This administration has several times crossed with Supreme court of Canada. The conservative party possibly could pass this bill with "intend to reside" clause intact because they got the majoirty. But there are people waiting to bring this up with the supreme court and it is sure the Harper administration would get its hands tapped.

 

[on-hold]

I have issues with the residency portion too (I agree it should be longer overall but time before PR should still count), but this "intent to reside" business is sheer lunacy. If and when I qualify for Canadian citizenship, I expect the same responsibilities but also the same rights and freedoms as everyone else who has Canadian citizenship.

If my wife (born in Canada) can decide to move anywhere in the world at any time, why can't I? I don't have any "intent to reside" somewhere else, but the fundamental right of freedom of movement is surely being removed by this? And how on earth does CIC on one end or the applicant on the other prove or disprove an "intent"?

I guess the government wishes to create some sort of Citizen Class B that is never allowed to live anywhere else in the world, when the Charter guarantees this right for all Canadians.

If you want a depressing conversation, ask some Canadians about this issue. Some -- not all, but some -- will very openly tell you that this makes sense, immigrants come here to work. If they don't want to live here, they should give up their citizenship. They have told this to my face, knowing that I'm an immigrant (though, because I'm American, they might not always remember it). Mention that many Canadians go live abroad to work, keep their citizenship; mention that immigrant citizens have the same rights as Canadians; mention that it's wrong to think of people as simply employment fodder for the country; none of it registers. To a lot of Canadians, immigration is for bringing in workers, it's got nothing to do with human dignity, human aspirations, or freedom.

Harper knows exactly what he's doing with this clause -- enforceable or not, the people above are his voters, and they see him fighting for their vision of working immigrants who don't claim true Canadian citizenship.

 

[toprainmaker]

That article is laughable, and it is clearly written by some pathetic lawyer who is worried about losing future revenue as a result of the clarification of the process. He writes about citizenship being harder to obtain as if it is a bad thing. His arguments are comically weak, as in claiming that it is unfair that people have to be able to speak either French or English to become a citizen, or that it's not right that the residency obligation should be 4 years instead of 3 without actually offering any explanation as to why. Then, the rest of the article consists of baseless fabrications, such as his claim that citizenship processing times will increase to 8-10 years!

Anyone who reads and believes this nonsense needs to start thinking for themselves.

Oh, and if you are so worried about having your citizenship stripped, either: (i) don't commit any terrorist acts; or (ii) give up your other citizenship. It's not that hard.

I read the article and I get it more than ever...we need this bill passed immediately, and need further reforms as well.

So, are you even in this boat with the rest of us? My experience says that those who are 100% in favor of the bill in its current format are usually people who are already citizens and don't like for others to have this privilege, not reasonably fair anyway.

I really don't understand why a new immigrant could echo a politician's nonsense and say eliminating pre-PR time just evens the field. Even Alexander's fellow conservative MPs didn't (and couldn't) justify his statement and as you might notice, no conservative MP says anything about pre-PR time during committee sessions. Because there is no reasonable justification as to why this time should be eliminated. Because it contradicts minister's own objective that this bill strengthens the Canadian citizenship.

I think YOU should start thinking for yourself, pal. You might have come as a refugee and have nowhere else to go, but most of people here have families abroad and also like their home countries. So, they don't want to give up their citizenship.

And one last thing: why do we need this important bill with its significant implications passed IMMEDIATELY without a proper public debate? Why should we ignore this huge number of concerns raised by experts (like Canadian Bar Association) and public (like folks in this forum) and even add more reforms (meaning more restrictions)? I really can't see how an honest person not having some political or personal agenda, saying that. Aren't the immigrants one of the main (if not the main) reasons Canada is what it is now?

 

[Travel Dream]

If you want a depressing conversation, ask some Canadians about this issue. Some -- not all, but some -- will very openly tell you that this makes sense, immigrants come here to work. If they don't want to live here, they should give up their citizenship. They have told this to my face, knowing that I'm an immigrant (though, because I'm American, they might not always remember it). Mention that many Canadians go live abroad to work, keep their citizenship; mention that immigrant citizens have the same rights as Canadians; mention that it's wrong to think of people as simply employment fodder for the country; none of it registers. To a lot of Canadians, immigration is for bringing in workers, it's got nothing to do with human dignity, human aspirations, or freedom.

Harper knows exactly what he's doing with this clause -- enforceable or not, the people above are his voters, and they see him fighting for their vision of working immigrants who don't claim true Canadian citizenship.

I will agree with intend to reside if it will be applied on immigrant and people born in Canada. I am sure if you asked these people again after this change they will change their mid.

 

[on-hold]

I will agree with intend to reside if it will be applied on immigrant and people born in Canada. I am sure if you asked these people again after this change they will change their mid.

And you would be wrong. They consider immigrants to have provisional citizenship, good for living in Canada only. Their citizenship is permanent, because they were born here. It's different! See, we came here to live and work, so if we don't do those things, we lose citizenship (in their eyes); but they were born here, they didn't have a choice, so it doesn't get taken away.

I'm not making this up! I mean, these people are not the cream of the crop, it's not everyone, and they aren't that bright . . . but they're Canadians, and that's how some of them think. Read the comments on newspaper articles about immigration.

It's not logical, or legal, or moral, or anything at all -- these people just don't like immigrants, they don't want to see them 'getting away' with anything, and they like Harper's law.

 

[eileenf]

Read the comments on newspaper articles about immigration.

Actually, please don't!

 

[Observer]

Hi All,
The minutes of yeserday's meeting are now published. Below is the outcome.

1- It was agreed, — That on Monday May 26, 2014, the Committee hear from witnesses in relation to its study on Strengthening the Protection of Women in our Immigration System for the first hour and that the second hour be devoted to giving drafting instructions to the Analysts.

2- It was agreed, — That a proposed budget in the amount of $ 22, 400.00, for the study of the subject matter of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be adopted.

 

[Matt the Aussie]

If you want a depressing conversation, ask some Canadians about this issue. Some -- not all, but some -- will very openly tell you that this makes sense, immigrants come here to work. If they don't want to live here, they should give up their citizenship. They have told this to my face, knowing that I'm an immigrant (though, because I'm American, they might not always remember it). Mention that many Canadians go live abroad to work, keep their citizenship; mention that immigrant citizens have the same rights as Canadians; mention that it's wrong to think of people as simply employment fodder for the country; none of it registers. To a lot of Canadians, immigration is for bringing in workers, it's got nothing to do with human dignity, human aspirations, or freedom.

Harper knows exactly what he's doing with this clause -- enforceable or not, the people above are his voters, and they see him fighting for their vision of working immigrants who don't claim true Canadian citizenship.

In essence, "if you don't like it, you can go home". Oh trust me, I've heard all those arguments before. I think anyone (immigrant or not) would consider the place they have lived continuously for the past 6 years to be their "home", so for me Canada is home. But I digress.

There's also a definite link to where in Canada you live and how much of this you will encounter. Not as much in big cities like Toronto, but exponentially so the further away you go.

And yet on the same subject many Canadians have also told me to my face that immigration is what's wrong with this country, that all immigrants do is come in and take their jobs and live off their welfare and EI. I've reminded those people that I am a proud immigrant and that is usually met with "well, not you obviously...". Really? I guess because I'm a white male that doesn't work in a factory or a trade I'm OK, right? If I were from South Asia and worked on the assembly line, well all bets off...

 

[maza]

Surely you are being a bit dramatic. Citizenship can be stripped if you are convicted of certain defined serious crimes. If you are worried about this, don't commit terrorist acts. It's that simple. No one has the right, with or without C-24, to strip you of citizenship because they feel like it.

So what if you go to Visit Vanzuela and got sentenced there for terrorism and they have your Canadian Citizenship revoked.. so instead protecting the Canadians, the government want to wash their hands to get rid of Naturalized Citizens. how can you Clarify that international sentences are enough(most of the world has unfair legal system and biased trials ) and how would you clarify them not allowing you to have an appeal or to have a hearing by a Judge for the decision that was done by a minister who has his own political agenda? is this gonna be a democracy or an equality? the answer is NO... do not keep defending things that you do not understand..

We came here to participate in the country and to make it better.. but in return , we want to feel secure and to be equal to all others

 

[maza]

In essence, "if you don't like it, you can go home". Oh trust me, I've heard all those arguments before. I think anyone (immigrant or not) would consider the place they have lived continuously for the past 6 years to be their "home", so for me Canada is home. But I digress.

There's also a definite link to where in Canada you live and how much of this you will encounter. Not as much in big cities like Toronto, but exponentially so the further away you go.

And yet on the same subject many Canadians have also told me to my face that immigration is what's wrong with this country, that all immigrants do is come in and take their jobs and live off their welfare and EI. I've reminded those people that I am a proud immigrant and that is usually met with "well, not you obviously...". Really? I guess because I'm a white male that doesn't work in a factory or a trade I'm OK, right? If I were from South Asia and worked on the assembly line, well all bets off...
[/quote


To Be Honest...
Many CANADAIANS are nice and welcoming,.. whenever they notice my accent they start asking me questions about my home country and the way i used to live before.. but when it comes to welfare and Pensions... everyone want to make sure that their system do not get abused... and i think if they apply the rule of making canadians pay taxes .. no matter where they lived or worked in the world... would make many of those who abuse the system think twice before doing so...

 

[MrB]

Hi All,
The minutes of yeserday's meeting are now published. Below is the outcome.

1- It was agreed, — That on Monday May 26, 2014, the Committee hear from witnesses in relation to its study on Strengthening the Protection of Women in our Immigration System for the first hour and that the second hour be devoted to giving drafting instructions to the Analysts.

2- It was agreed, — That a proposed budget in the amount of $ 22, 400.00, for the study of the subject matter of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be adopted.

So according to the 2014 calendar for parliament, there are exactly 20 days before the summer recess. Are you still certain it would pass by summer?...lol

 

[admontreal]

Actually, please don't!

I agree, please don't, it's simply discouraging.

I've been living in Canada for 8 years now and I always noticed, and please don't take that the wrong way, a latent ignorance about citizenship and immigration matters from people who were born here. The only people who understood all the hassle I went through for my Work permit, then my permanent residency and now my citizenship are the ones who experienced (directly or undirectly) the process, either by spending time abroad or having a friend/relative/colleague who went through it.

I was sponsored by my employer to have my work permit, and it was renewed twice. Even though my colleagues were extremely nice and helpful, they always thought I was being sponsored to be a Canadian Citizen. Yes, you read well, they really thought that I got a temporary and renewable citizenship that granted me everything (passport, voting rights, working rights) for one year, and when I obtained my PR as a Skilled Worker, they thought it became permanent and that I was Canadian forever. I tried to explain many times what the situation really was, they kept thinking what they were thinking in the beggining. So know, they can't understand why I applied again (while in fact I finally just applied for Canadian citizenship). The other comment I keep having is : 'You're Canadian because you married a Canadian', and that comment is sometimes from my own family in law !!! It's very frustrating, knowing that I met my wife after my PR application, and that when we got married I was already a PR. For those who know the process, please find the error ???

I understand that Canadian-born people could not 'care' about all those rules. Because they actually don't need to care about it. But what I'm a bit sad and frustrated about, is them giving comments and stating facts as it was the final and real Truth. They agree with the C-24 Bill without even knowing a SINGLE detail. They think eveything that is granted to us, the immigrants, is a favor and will always be temporary, even citizenship.....

I know some people, if not all the people, will understand what I mean, and may have experienced similar facts.

 

[admontreal]

On another topic, I don't know if it was brought up in this thread but I want to precise something about the Intent to reside. Many of those who immigrated as skilled workers in Québec may have signed a form called : Declaration of Intent to Reside in Québec

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/forms/imm0008_5e.pdf

It's a very simple form but I think it has the same implications as the new clause contained in the C-24 Bill.

I did sign that form, and I always had the intent to live in Québec. However, I two years ago I got a job offer and I left Québec for Ottawa for one year. Now I'm back to Montréal and I never had any problem about that. Should I be stripped of my PR card ?

Per my experience, I don't know anyone who faced a revocation of his PR status because of that intent. But it may change, as well as what has been said to us for the intent to reside in Canada as future citizens.


PS : I will apologize for my previous and future English mistakes, as you know all, I'm just a humble French Speaking Immigrant. I hope they won't put a new clause restricting the grant of citizenship to English native speakers only ;D