Work in USA; travel back to Canada at weekends; residence time calculation

[Natan]

Just because it will become legal, doesn't make it right.

Federal Expropriation Law allows itself to take land from you for public interests. Are you okay with federal government taking your land or your relative's land to build a high speed train or pipeline? It is all legal.

While abortion is legal, I suppose sex-selective abortion is also legal?

So quit hiding behind your "It's all legal" mantra. It's easy to say "It's all legal" until it happens to you.

I fail to see how working in the US while living in Canada and spending the US earned income in Canada is a scam, a fraud, or not right, as regards to such a person naturalizing as a Canadian citizen. Please explain why earning money in the USA and spending that money in Canada, the place where one lives, is "wrong".

Comparing cross border employment to sex-selective abortions and fully compensated public domain acquisitions is illogical.

 

[screech339]

I fail to see how working in the US while living in Canada and spending the US earned income in Canada is a scam, a fraud, or not right, as regards to such a person naturalizing as a Canadian citizen. Please explain why earning money in the USA and spending that money in Canada, the place where one lives, is "wrong".

Comparing cross border employment to sex-selective abortions and fully compensated public domain acquisitions is illogical.

I am merely making a point and examples to links18 that just because it is legal doesn't necessary means that it is right.

It is all legal for companies/millionaires to park their money in offshore accounts/countries to avoid paying income / corporate taxes but does it make it right?

Just because someone is trying to qualify for Canadian citizenship when he/she is outside Canada more than 50% of the time doesn't make it right for the person to qualify for citizenship in the first place. This was why the 183 days per calendar year was put in place. To prevent people from trying to scam the system.

Since the "intend to reside" and 183 days per year was removed, everyone looking for a quick citizenship are now coming out of the woods. And people say there were no such thing.

 

[Natan]

I am merely making a point and examples to links18 that just because it is legal doesn't necessary means that it is right.

It is all legal for companies/millionaires to park their money in offshore accounts/countries to avoid paying income / corporate taxes but does it make it right?

Just because someone is trying to qualify for Canadian citizenship when he/she is outside Canada more than 50% of the time doesn't make it right for the person to qualify for citizenship in the first place. This was why the 183 days per calendar year was put in place. To prevent people from trying to scam the system.

Since the "intend to reside" and 183 days per year was removed, everyone looking for a quick citizenship are now coming out of the woods. And people say there were no such thing.

Merriam Webster defines "scam" as: "a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation".

Someone who works in the USA, but has their primary domicile and life centred in Canada, and meets the residence requirements of citizenship, and discloses all their travel and work history on their application, is taking an honest, legal and morally correct action. The very opposite of a scam!

I recognize that English is a difficult language to master, but I, nonetheless, humbly request that you research the meaning of English language words that impute dishonourable motives to your fellow board members before using them, willy-nilly, in libelous accusations.

 

[screech339]

Merriam Webster defines "scam" as: "a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation".

Someone who works in the USA, but has their primary domicile and life centred in Canada, and meets the residence requirements of citizenship, and discloses all their travel and work history on their application, is taking an honest, legal and morally correct action. The very opposite of a scam!

I recognize that English is a difficult language to master, but I, nonetheless, humbly request that you research the meaning of English language words that impute dishonourable motives to your fellow board members before using them, willy-nilly, in libelous accusations.

That's right. It is a deceptive act to qualify for citizenship while being outside Canada more than 50% of the time.

I notice you never mention anything about companies / millionaires parking their money outside Canada to avoid taxes. Selective reading much? Are you saying that these actions are not deceptive actions and yet legal?

 

[Natan]

That's right. It is a deceptive act to qualify for citizenship while being outside Canada more than 50% of the time.

I notice you never mention anything about companies / millionaires parking their money outside Canada to avoid taxes. Selective reading much? Are you saying that these actions are not deceptive actions and yet legal?

Merriam Webster defines "deception" as: "the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid".

Someone who works in the USA, but has their primary domicile and life centred in Canada, and meets the residence requirements of citizenship, and discloses all their travel and work history on their application, is taking an honest, legal and morally correct action. The very opposite of deceptive!

I recognize that English is a difficult language to master, but I, nonetheless, humbly request that you research the meaning of English language words that impute dishonourable motives to your fellow board members before using them, willy-nilly, in libelous accusations.

 

[screech339]

Merriam Webster defines "deception" as: "the act of causing someone to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid".

Someone who works in the USA, but has their primary domicile and life centred in Canada, and meets the residence requirements of citizenship, and discloses all their travel and work history on their application, is taking an honest, legal and morally correct action. The very opposite of deceptive!

I recognize that English is a difficult language to master, but I, nonetheless, humbly request that you research the meaning of English language words that impute dishonourable motives to your fellow board members before using them, willy-nilly, in libelous accusations.

Again by not addressing my example, you are just trying to rationalize the deception. Nothing more.

 

[_MK_]

Again by not addressing my example, you are just trying to rationalize the deception. Nothing more.

Perhaps instead of trying to hijack this thread, you should open a new one to discuss tax fraud by millionaires in offshore accounts and their morality. It has nothing to do with citizenship.
This thread is trying to discuss about ways of reporting foreign income which is a reality for many people living in border cities and working for multinationals/businesses requiring spending significant amount of time abroad.
Canada's immigration system is designed to attract smart/successful people and smart successful people tend to have the need to be mobile in this day and age. If this guy is paying Canadian taxes on US income, it is a win:win for Canada.

 

[screech339]

Perhaps instead of trying to hijack this thread, you should open a new one to discuss tax fraud by millionaires in offshore accounts and their morality. It has nothing to do with citizenship.
This thread is trying to discuss about ways of reporting foreign income which is a reality for many people living in border cities and working for multinationals/businesses requiring spending significant amount of time abroad.
Canada's immigration system is designed to attract smart/successful people and smart successful people tend to have the need to be mobile in this day and age. If this guy is paying Canadian taxes on US income, it is a win:win for Canada.

Again, paying taxes doesn't entitle one to citizenship. It's about being physically and settling in Canada as an actual home country does one need to qualify for citizenship. That is the premises of qualifying for citizenship. Not while someone is qualifying for citizenship while abroad spending a little time in Canada as possible, regardless of whether one pay Canadian taxes on foreign income or not.

You are also rationalizing the deception by "paying Canadian income tax on US income" as "win-win" as an excuse.

 

[_MK_]

Again, paying taxes doesn't entitle one to citizenship. It's about being physically and settling in Canada as an actual home country does one need to qualify for citizenship. That is the premises of qualifying for citizenship. Not while someone is qualifying for citizenship while abroad spending a little time in Canada as possible, regardless of whether one pay Canadian taxes on foreign income or not.

You are also rationalizing the deception by "paying Canadian income tax on US income" as "win-win" as an excuse.

By your own argument, this guy is planning to spend half of the week every week in Canada. How is that not living in Canada physically?
Before the physical requirement pre C24, you could argue that some people would spend entire year abroad, file Canadian taxes and get citizenship. This person is spending physical time here and it is going to take more than double the time it takes a normal applicant this way.
Physical presence requirement has not gone away. Applicants still has to show 1095 days of physical presence. This person is not going to be able to apply with any less just like any other applicant.

 

[screech339]

By your own argument, this guy is planning to spend half of the week every week in Canada. How is that not living in Canada physically?
Before the physical requirement pre C24, you could argue that some people would spend entire year abroad, file Canadian taxes and get citizenship. This person is spending physical time here and it is going to take more than double the time it takes a normal applicant this way.
Physical presence requirement has not gone away. Applicants still has to show 1095 days of physical presence. This person is not going to be able to apply with any less just like any other applicant.

Pre-C-24 (3/4 rule) made acquiring citizenship too easy with little time spent in Canada. Just like C-6 is and will be. C-24 was a reasonable compromise law that strengthen the qualifications for citizenship.

 

[Natan]

Pre-C-24 (3/4 rule) made acquiring citizenship too easy with little time spent in Canada. Just like C-6 is and will be. C-24 was a reasonable compromise law that strengthen the qualifications for citizenship.

Living in Canada and working in Connecticut and schlepping between the two to live, and centre, one's life in Canada is no easy thing to do: it is expensive, time consuming, hard on the body, hard on the family, and hard on one's life. In short, it is very, very difficult. That someone values living in Canada, and becoming a Canadian citizen, so much that they are willing to undergo all this trouble is certainly not someone who is taking an "easy" road to citizenship.

The amount of time someone spends in Canada has little bearing on someone's commitment to Canada, to taking on the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship, or to how well they will integrate into Canadian society. Going to all the trouble of maintaining a primary residence, and a life centred, in Canada while working in Connecticut is highly indicative of someone who is committed to Canada and the responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.

Physical residence in Canada is a superficial determinant of one's integration into Canadian society.

 

[screech339]

Ways to qualify 3/5 rule.

(Option 1) year 1: 365 days; Year 2: 365 days; Year 3: 365 days; Year 4: 0 days; Year 5: 0 days

Qualifies after 3 years; been a residence of Canada 3 years

(Option 2) year 1: 274 days; Year 2: 274 days; Year 3: 274 days; Year 4: 273 days; Year 5: 0 days

Qualifies after 4 years; been a residence of Canada 4 years

(Option 3) year 1: 365 days; Year 2: 365 days; Year 3: 183 days; Year 4: 182 days; Year 5: 0 days

Qualifies after 4 years; been a residence of Canada 3 years

(Option 4) year 1: 365 days; Year 2: 184 days; Year 3: 182 days; Year 4: 182 days; Year 5: 182 days

Qualifies after 5 years; been a residence of Canada 2 years

(Option 5) year 1: 365 days; Year 2: 365 days; Year 3: 122 days; Year 4: 122 days; Year 5: 121 days

Qualifies after 5 years; been a residence of Canada 2 years

(Option 6) year 1: 219 days; Year 2: 219 days; Year 3: 219 days; Year 4: 219 days; Year 5: 219 days

Qualifies after 5 years; been a residence of Canada 5 years

As you can see: Option 4 & 5: An applicant can qualify for citizenship with only maintaining 2 years of being a residence of Canada out of 5 years with Option 3 while one meets the 3 year minimum 3 year residence of Canada. the applicant only made it by 1 day. So you can see why 183 minimum day per qualification year should be met. Does it make sense to you that an applicant can qualify for citizenship after maintaining only 2 years of residency in Canada. 3/5 = 60% and yet Options 3; 4; 5, the applicant has spent more time outside Canada to qualify for citizenship.

Minimum 183 days per qualifying year removes this ability to qualify with only 2 years of residency of Canada. This minimum 183 days would force the applicant to actually spend at least more than 50% of time inside Canada to qualify.

 

[Natan]

Ways to qualify 3/5 rule.

(Option 1) year 1: 365 days; Year 2: 365 days; Year 3: 365 days; Year 4: 0 days; Year 5: 0 days

Qualifies after 3 years; been a residence of Canada 3 years

(Option 2) year 1: 274 days; Year 2: 274 days; Year 3: 274 days; Year 4: 273 days; Year 5: 0 days

Qualifies after 4 years; been a residence of Canada 4 years

(Option 3) year 1: 365 days; Year 2: 365 days; Year 3: 183 days; Year 4: 182 days; Year 5: 0 days

Qualifies after 4 years; been a residence of Canada 3 years

(Option 4) year 1: 365 days; Year 2: 184 days; Year 3: 182 days; Year 4: 182 days; Year 5: 182 days

Qualifies after 5 years; been a residence of Canada 2 years

(Option 5) year 1: 365 days; Year 2: 365 days; Year 3: 122 days; Year 4: 122 days; Year 5: 121 days

Qualifies after 5 years; been a residence of Canada 2 years

(Option 6) year 1: 219 days; Year 2: 219 days; Year 3: 219 days; Year 4: 219 days; Year 5: 219 days

Qualifies after 5 years; been a residence of Canada 5 years

As you can see: Option 4 & 5: An applicant can qualify for citizenship with only maintaining 2 years of being a residence of Canada out of 5 years with Option 3 while one meets the 3 year minimum 3 year residence of Canada. the applicant only made it by 1 day. So you can see why 183 minimum day per qualification year should be met. Does it make sense to you that an applicant can qualify for citizenship after maintaining only 2 years of residency in Canada. 3/5 = 60% and yet Options 3; 4; 5, the applicant has spent more time outside Canada to qualify for citizenship.

Minimum 183 days per qualifying year removes this ability to qualify with only 2 years of residency of Canada. This minimum 183 days would force the applicant to actually spend at least more than 50% of time inside Canada to qualify.

In order to meet the residency requirement of citizenship, the applicant must have lived in Canada for 1095 days (3 years) in the past 5 years, your pseudo-mathematical gymnastics notwithstanding.

 

[screech339]

In order to meet the residency requirement of citizenship, the applicant must have lived in Canada for 1095 days (3 years) in the past 5 years, your pseudo-mathematical gymnastics notwithstanding.

Is that all you got for a comeback? Are you saying Option 4 and 5 can't be done?

It doesn't change the fact that under 3/5 rule one can qualify for citizenship with less than 50% of the time spent inside Canada. Hence the reason 183 minimum day was added in C-24. To prevent this obvious glaring flaw that one can get citizenship with only 2 years of residency in Canada.

 

[Natan]

Are you saying Option 4 and 5 can't be done?

It doesn't change the fact that under 3/5 rule one can qualify for citizenship with less than 50% of the time spent inside Canada. Hence the reason 183 minimum day was added in C-24. To prevent this obvious glaring flaw that one can get citizenship with only 2 years of residency in Canada.

Both your Options 4 & 5 include 1,095 days (3 years) of residence.

Option 4: 365 + 184 + 182 + 182 + 182 = 1,095
Option 5: 365 + 365 + 122 + 122 + 121 = 1,095

How many years has 1,095 days? 1,095 / 365 = 3