No, I agree completely -- basically, a 'symbol' is anything that is more important than it actually is. In this case, it is highly unlikely that the clause will EVER be applied in a practical manner; and if it is, then it shows that anti-immigration sentiment has grown. Symbolically, however, it represents a certain attitude towards immigration and immigrants that is not, shall we say, equitable.
I think a lot of the fuss about this comes from the fact that immigrants are, by definition, open to moving -- not everyone in the developing world wants to move, and few do. A lot of Canadians don't understand this, and think of Canada as a paradise with people beating on the gates. I've lived in Thailand and Laos, and even in the poorest parts of Southeast Asia, people like their lives. Sure, they want more money, they'd like better governance; but they also like day to day living, the food, their neighbours, and the things that are important to them that Canada won't have. The people who immigrate once, might immigrate twice -- because they're the kind of people who do. To some Canadians, this smacks of:
a) ingratitude, we let you in and this is how you repay us? (But to the immigrant, immigration is not always an escape, it's a shot in the dark, a venture, and something that is ongoing and open to modification)
b) cheating, all you do is eat benefits (But to the immigrant, they are also aware of what they lost by immigrating, not only the health care and schools that are gained)
c) betrayal, you go to the States! (all through history Canada has been sensitive to people heading off to the U.S., now it feels like an older sister whose boyfriend broke up with her and started dating her hot sibling (pun intended)
Whereas to the immigrant, who has to fit Canada into their lives, the 'reside here' clause sounds as if they are no longer considered full humans, with freedom to make complicated choices.
