My answer that it was BS was and is correct in the context of the original question and the phrasing: that "But I was reading some thread that if I did not settle in MB permanently..." (bolded for convenience).
It is indeed bullshit that there was ever such a rule requiring anyone to settle in a province permanently - as would be a clear violation of constitution.
And as noted, ten years - let alone two or even one - would easily satisfy "the rules" as they actually exist. Making the stated claim from somewhere else obvious bullshit.
Upfront, to be clear, according to a
Manitoba government website, to be a "
supporter" for a nominee in the MPNP program, the supporter . . .
". . . must be able to demonstrate that any applications they previously supported resulted in successful, permanent economic establishment in Manitoba . . ."
among other requirements.
So the rule that
@mrcj17 asked about exists, and is indeed the rule.
Since
@mrcj17 settled in Manitoba for ten years (and even if it had only been two years), their supporter should be able to easily demonstrate meeting this requirement, this rule, if they are looking at being the supporter for another nominee.
As I said,
It is OK to take a job in another province . . . and resettle there . . . or even (since you have citizenship) in another country. OK for you. OK for anyone who supported or sponsored you.
No expertise or knowledge of the MPNP rules in particular necessary, it is safe to say that if you remained in the province for more than two years, let alone ten, and even if you were still a PR let alone a citizen, there is no reason to worry that taking a job in a different province would have any negative impact on your immigration status or that it would have a negative impact on the eligibility of a supporter, sponsor, or employer in the provincial program.
As is more often the case than not the case in queries posted here, the way
@mrcj17 phrased it was imprecise. But the rule being referenced is clear enough. If, as "
an MPNP product"
@mrcj17 "
did not settle in MB permanently" that could indeed preclude their supporter from being a supporter for another MPNP nominee in the future. Since
@mrcj17 did settle permanently in Manitoba (easily demonstrated based on two years let alone ten), no problem, OK to move, OK for both
@mrcj17 and for the supporter.
So I am scratching my head a bit. You are posting, it appears, to argue (why argue) that you were correct to say . . . well, I am not sure what you were saying is BS, now
arguing it is BS no less. Either way, whether you are insisting that such a rule is BS, or that claiming there is such a rule is BS, is . . . well, probably no need for me to spell it out . . .
. . . the more important thing is understand the question asked and, if responding be responsive to the question. No BS should work.
Otherwise . . .
I admit I did not bother to do the rudimentary homework to become familiar with the particular rules governing nominee supporters in Manitoba, before responding. I was not pretending to know it all (after all, it is readily apparent there is a great deal about immigration in Canada I do not know), but excused being a little lazy because the length of time
@mrcj17 has been settled in Manitoba would clearly satisfy whatever the rules require, which, as I said was "
based on a general knowledge of Canada's immigration system and the strictest rules for such programs."
But I otherwise have to admit I am confused by your bolding of the term "
permanently" for, you say, "
convenience."
Apart from having no idea how bolding the term "
permanently" is convenient . . .
. . . for others for whom English is not the most convenient language and who might not recognize many words in this language have multiple meanings, at the risk of stating the obvious, as used in Canada in immigration contexts, terms like "
permanent" and "
permanently" do not mean forever unchanging, or changeless, but rather refer to what is intended to last for a considerable time, at least an indefinite rather than a temporary period of time. Those who are applying to become a Permanent Resident of Canada, for example, do not need to worry that they are misrepresenting their intent to settle permanently in Canada (which is required to qualify for a grant of PR status) if they harbor ideas about living outside Canada for a period of time in the future.
Edit to add: I am additionally confused why you say such a rule limiting eligibility to be the supporter for a provincial nominee would be unconstitutional. Not on the table here, so shrug, but FWIW that's not how I see it.
