when will the self administered oath start?
- Thread starter brittanymurphy
- Start date
Not a lot of great comments, it looks like the majority of people are not fans of this https://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2023/2023-02-25/html/reg1-eng.html
I'm a little torn on this. On one hand anything to speed up the process is welcome for those living in Canada. On the other, I see folks don't even live in Canada while acquiring the citizenship.
Same I do not like the idea, I feel like it feels cheap and holds no value!! they need to find ways to speed up the other steps that take forever and then the ceremony will not be a problem. even if that means making people pay for their own background check since that seems to take the longest to be done.
Also, wanted to add its unlikely we will hear from IRCC on this summer, the regulatory process is very long
They are prob at stage 4 now, and then they will have to publish again in the Canadian Gazette again etc etc etc.
Source chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/laws-lois/pdf/infograph-laws-lois.pdf
I hear you, and agree/support you 100% However, if it means I do not deal with incompetent IRCC, sign me up!
Remember when they changed the RO for PR and citizenship and added RO to people who were granted citizenship post oath?
(Spoiler alert! Unpopular opinion coming up)
I wish they had kept RO post oath. Sure, if you work abroad for a Canadian company or the Canadian government, that should count as RO, just as a PR spouse accompanying a Citizen spouse abroad.
Why clog the system with an application if the plan is to say “sayonara” while flipping the finger, once sworn in?
Is this something the applicants can choose from? There seems to be some who don't wanna do in person and some who don't wanna do online.
Hope it's a choice!
When I called in to ask about other stuff, I asked if it was possible to request in person ceremony. The answer was yes and to send it in via webform.
Observations for clarification:
There was NEVER any obligation to reside in Canada AFTER taking the oath, after becoming a citizen.
The so-called "intent to reside" requirement, for a grant of citizenship, was really an "intent to continue residing in Canada" (emphasis added) requirement, and was widely misconstrued. It was a qualifying element for being granted citizenship. It did not impose any limitations on citizens, once they were actually citizens.
That provision was adopted by the Harper government and only applied for a matter of months, from June, 2015 when it took effect, until early 2016 when the recently elected Liberal government ceased enforcing it (eventually repealing it altogether as of June 2017 -- the latter a date I have sometimes mistakenly said was October 2017, confusing it for the date when the 4/6 rule was replaced by the 3/5 rule, both changes made in the same act of parliament, but with different effective dates).
The main objective of that particular provision was to allow CIC (as it was named until the Liberal government, newly elected in later 2015, changed it to IRCC) grounds to deny citizenship applications if the applicant relocated abroad after applying. The Harper government in particular, and both Conservatives and conservatives generally (and quite a few Canadians who are not all that conservative), were very concerned by what they perceived to be the abuse of the Canadian path to citizenship, by those they described and perceived to be "applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport," or otherwise "seeking-a-passport-of-convenience."
Since a person cannot intend to "continue" doing something unless they are currently doing it, any citizenship applicant who moved abroad after applying could not possibly have the intent to continue residing in Canada (cannot intend to continue residing in a place they are not residing in). So just living (residing) outside Canada after applying meant the applicant did not meet this requirement, and thus constituted a basis for denying the application.
In particular, the so-called "intent to reside" provision was section 5(1)(c.1)(i) in the Citizenship Act (version in effect from June 11, 2015 to June 18, 2017, which can be seen here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/section-5-20150611.html#wb-cont ), which stated:
5(1) The Minister shall grant citizenship to any person who
(subsections (a) to (c) listing particular requirements, including (c) listing physical presence requirement)
(c.1) intends, if granted citizenship,
(i) to continue to reside in Canada
(subsections (d) to (f) listing additional particular requirements, including knowledge of Canada and language requirements)
How and why there was such extensive mischaracterization of this provision, that it would somehow, in some way restrict the mobility of naturalized citizens AFTER they became a citizen, is a complicated subject deeply entangled in the politics of that time, and the natural limitations of political discourse tending to revolve around sound bites and bumper-sticker slogans. Much of the confusion was due to other parts of the SCCA that the Harper government rammed through, including the parts that literally did create different tiers of citizenship, those who could have their citizenship stripped (not just revoked, since these provisions could apply to citizens born in Canada if they had, or even could have dual citizenship) for certain types of criminal convictions, versus those who could not (those with no right to citizenship in another country).
In any event, there has NEVER been a RO requirement applicable to Canadian citizens, only RO requirements imposed on PRs, and PRs applying for citizenship in particular.
One mistake it seems more than a few make is the view that the repeal of the intent-to-continue-residing in Canada requirement meant that IRCC decision-makers cannot consider living abroad after applying in processing a citizenship application, which is a subject that tends to draw ire and fire, more than a little controversy, much riddled with arguments about what the law and rules should be rather than an honest recognition of what the law and rules actually are and how they are applied in practice . . . the ire and fire coming from both ends of the spectrum . . . from those who advocate there should be no negative inferences or implications based on an applicant living abroad after applying . . . and from those who still have concerns about suspected abuse of Canada's immigration system, particularly those some will describe and perceive to be "applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport," or otherwise "seeking-a-passport-of-convenience." It is perhaps ironic that both ends of the spectrum, respectively (albeit typically not with much respect) complain there is too much, or not enough attention, to this.