New Citizenship Bill Thursday Feb 6th

[keesio]

It doesn't make sense that naturalized Canadians are discriminated against Canadian born.

Remember that there indeed is a bit of a difference. People Canadian born have a right to claim citizenship. Naturalization is different. The country can grant you a citizenship (hence the name "Grant of Citizenship') but it is up to them to decide to grant it to you. Qualifying for citizenship doesn't mean you are entitled to it or have a right to it. The country decides what you need to do to be granted one and at the end of the day, it really is up to them. they want you to live in Canada for X number of days. They make you swear an oath. They want you to be be able to speak one of the official languages with some competency. These are things that a Canadian born do not have to worry about. If the "intent" thing is discrimination for a naturalized citizen... is the language thing also the same? I mean what happens if a Canadian born in Canada goes abroad and has a child in another country and that child becomes a Canadian citizen by birth even though he/she may never be able to speak English or French? Another example of naturalized Canadians being discriminated against? That child never spent a second in Canada. How can he/she be a citizen?

People applying for naturalization have a different set of rules. Always have been. In every country.

 

[links18]

Remember that there indeed is a bit of a difference. People Canadian born have a right to claim citizenship. Naturalization is different. The country can grant you a citizenship (hence the name "Grant of Citizenship') but it is up to them to decide to grant it to you. Qualifying for citizenship doesn't mean you are entitled to it or have a right to it. The country decides what you need to do to be granted one and at the end of the day, it really is up to them. they want you to live in Canada for X number of days. They make you swear an oath. They want you to be be able to speak one of the official languages with some competency. These are things that a Canadian born do not have to worry about. If the "intent" thing is discrimination for a naturalized citizen... is the language thing also the same? I mean what happens if a Canadian born in Canada goes abroad and has a child in another country and that child becomes a Canadian citizen by birth even though he/she may never be able to speak English or French? Another example of naturalized Canadians being discriminated against? That child never spent a second in Canada. How can he/she be a citizen?

People applying for naturalization have a different set of rules. Always have been. In every country.

Its different if the requirements are put on the immigrants prior to or after becoming citizens. If it is after, then its not really citizenship at all, its something else--second class citizenship, conditional citizenship, whatever. The essence of citizenship is that it is supposed to be based on the equality of ALL citizens and it is supposed to be irrevocable--except in cases of fraud in the citizenship process, which means you really weren't a citizen to begin with. The problem with the current intent clause is that it appears like it might be an attempt to get around the equality of citizenship by setting up a claim of "fraud in the citizenship process," if you don't appear to abide by your stated intent. This is rightfully controversial..........

 

[harry_aussie]

There is no problem with the number of years of residency required for Citizenship purposes. The problem is that Canada does not want to recognize time already spent in Canada before getting PR.This clause is utter bull $hit. How can time spent in Canada be ignored ?. Minister wants immigrants to spend more time in Canada in order to apply for Citizenship but his statement sounds stupid when he refused to acknowledge time already spent in Canada.

 

[keesio]

Its different if the requirements are put on the immigrants prior to or after becoming citizens. If it is after, then its not really citizenship at all, its something else--second class citizenship, conditional citizenship, whatever.

Then guess what.... it was ALWAYS second class citizenship. Even before this bill.

Remember that you have to also swear an oath to continue to be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Queen after. It's funny, many people feel that oath more intrusive (depends on your feelings of the British monarchy).

 

[vic48912]

Then guess what.... it was ALWAYS second class citizenship. Even before this bill.

Remember that you have to also swear an oath to continue to be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Queen after. It's funny, many people feel that oath more intrusive (depends on your feelings of the British monarchy).

Does any new immigrant have problem paying allegiance to the queen? Me personally I don't have problem with that......any immigrant who have problem with it should have migrated to another country

 

[keesio]

Does any new immigrant have problem paying allegiance to the queen? Me personally I don't have problem with that......any immigrant who have problem with it should have migrated to another country

People have sued the government in the past over it.

http://www.citynews.ca/2013/07/11/would-be-canadian-citizens-set-to-fight-oath-to-queen-as-discriminatory/

There are people in Canada who have been a PR for decades because they will not apply for citizenship because of the oath to the monarchy

 

[Mike15]

Does any new immigrant have problem paying allegiance to the queen? Me personally I don't have problem with that......any immigrant who have problem with it should have migrated to another country

Agreed. Any applicant who's studied Discover Canada should know that the Queen of Canada is a symbol for the nation, and swearing an oath to the Queen and her heirs is swearing an oath to a living embodiment of Canada, representing all Canadians.

"Understanding the Oath
In Canada, we profess our loyalty to a person who represents all Canadians and not to a document such as a constitution, a banner such as a flag, or a geopolitical entity such as a country. In our constitutional monarchy, these elements are encompassed by the Sovereign (Queen or King). It is a remarkably simple yet powerful principle: Canada is personified by the Sovereign just as the Sovereign is personified by Canada."

 

[links18]

Then guess what.... it was ALWAYS second class citizenship. Even before this bill.

Remember that you have to also swear an oath to continue to be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Queen after. It's funny, many people feel that oath more intrusive (depends on your feelings of the British monarchy).

Taking an oath to the figurehead is another matter altogether than potentially losing your mobility rights. Apples and oranges......

 

[farrous13]

Keesio, Let's say I came to Canada when I was 16 and lived all my life here. What would be my true citizenship in this case? Is it the country I was born in. Personally I would consider myself Canadian. Even if I was granted the Canadian citizenship, why would the government have the right to take it away for any reason that may arise? The whole scenario does not make sense. Why should my citizenship be always on the line? Let's say one day, I HAD to go and work in the another country, after spending over 15 years in Canada and contributing to its economy, what would be the government's stand point in this case? I am very curious. I don't see any difference between me or any Canadian born right now besides the birth place recorded on the birth certificate.

If the government didn't want to naturalize immigrants or wanted to discriminate against Canadian born, then why give them citizenships? Keep them on a PR status all their life. At least that way everyone will know their position and hence we can make up our minds on whether this is fair to us.

Remember that there indeed is a bit of a difference. People Canadian born have a right to claim citizenship. Naturalization is different. The country can grant you a citizenship (hence the name "Grant of Citizenship') but it is up to them to decide to grant it to you. Qualifying for citizenship doesn't mean you are entitled to it or have a right to it. The country decides what you need to do to be granted one and at the end of the day, it really is up to them. they want you to live in Canada for X number of days. They make you swear an oath. They want you to be be able to speak one of the official languages with some competency. These are things that a Canadian born do not have to worry about. If the "intent" thing is discrimination for a naturalized citizen... is the language thing also the same? I mean what happens if a Canadian born in Canada goes abroad and has a child in another country and that child becomes a Canadian citizen by birth even though he/she may never be able to speak English or French? Another example of naturalized Canadians being discriminated against? That child never spent a second in Canada. How can he/she be a citizen?

People applying for naturalization have a different set of rules. Always have been. In every country.

 

[keesio]

Taking an oath to the figurehead is another matter altogether than potentially losing your mobility rights. Apples and oranges......

No it is not. Because all they are doing is making you swear that your intent is to remain in Canada (just like you swear to be loyal to the Queen). If you later change your mind, then that is allowed. You don't lose your mobility rights.

Go look at all the PNP cases where once the person lands, he moves somewhere else. Because once he becomes a PR, it is within his rights to move to another province. Even if that person promised to settle to the original province as in the PNP requirements (and often that person never even intended to settle in the original province anyway). Same with a citizen. You say your plan is to remain in Canada. But if you change your mind later on, there is not much that can be done to prevent it. If you feel "dirty" or like a second-class citizen because you are being forced to declare it, then it is like the same people in that article who were protesting having to give the oath to a figurehead that represents something they can't stand.

 

[keesio]

Keesio, Let's say I came to Canada when I was 16 and lived all my life here. What would be my true citizenship in this case? Is it the country I was born in. Personally I would consider myself Canadian. Even if I was granted the Canadian citizenship, why would the government have the right to take it away for any reason that may arise? The whole scenario does not make sense. Why should my citizenship be always on the line? Let's say one day, I HAD to go and work in the another country, after spending over 15 years in Canada and contributing to its economy, what would be the government's stand point in this case? I am very curious. I don't see any difference between me or any Canadian born right now besides the birth place recorded on the birth certificate.

If the government didn't want to naturalize immigrants or wanted to discriminate against Canadian born, then why give them citizenships? Keep them on a PR status all their life. At least that way everyone will know their position and hence we can make up our minds on whether this is fair to us.

I'm actually not arguing with you on this. I am arguing that that has always been a different set of rules for the process of naturalizing vs obtaining a citizenship for one born into it. People think this is a new development with the "intent" thing and are outraged now. I was saying that this existed before the "intent" thing and that this is hardly unique to Canada. It surprises me that people are fixated on this now like it is a new development.

 

[farrous13]

How did the "intent to stay" point exist before? I don't see it.
I personally believe that the intent indirectly existed under "the 3 our of 4 years" to qualify for the citizenship but not after obtaining the citizenship. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm actually not arguing with you on this. I am arguing that that has always been a different set of rules for the process of naturalizing vs obtaining a citizenship for one born into it. People think this is a new development with the "intent" thing and are outraged now. I was saying that this existed before the "intent" thing and that this is hardly unique to Canada. It surprises me that people are fixated on this now like it is a new development.

 

[trunorth]

What difference is it going to make by increasing it from 3 to 4 year? Makes no sense.!

People who have been here 5 years before becoming PR then applying for Citizenship would have a total of 8 years and still not 'Canadianized'?? LOL!!!

Strip Citizenship?? LOL!!!!

Sign an intent letter?? LOL!!!! See Wikipedia....LOIs (Lett of Intent) resemble written contracts, but are usually not binding on the parties in their entirety....LOL!!!!

What a funny bill! Makes me wanna laugh till my tongue falls out!

 

[keesio]

How did the "intent to stay" point exist before? I don't see it.
I personally believe that the intent indirectly existed under "the 3 our of 4 years" to qualify for the citizenship but not after obtaining the citizenship. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The intent thing specifically is new for Canada.

What existed before is different standards (in general) for people trying to obtain citizenship via naturalization vs citizenship via birth.

 

[links18]

No it is not. Because all they are doing is making you swear that your intent is to remain in Canada (just like you swear to be loyal to the Queen). If you later change your mind, then that is allowed. You don't lose your mobility rights.

Well, do we know this for a fact? Or is it pure speculation at this point? If its purely symbolic why bother with it at all?