Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[surgi]

I definitely hate PRs who are only protesting because it's inconvenient for them and they'll have to stay in Canada for longer. I loathe PRs who get their status and then only fulfill minimums. I wish they would just have their status revoked.

My concern is that if the government removes the inclusion of time spent prior to becoming PR (perhaps as as student or worker), it devalues those people. Essentially, the government is saying "Come to Canada. Pay three times the fees of other students. And, of course, when you graduate and get a job, we'll make it as hard as possible for you to stay here. But, we love you guys, though, and we need you."

So my primary concern is not requirng that more time is spent in Canada, but that the time spent prior to becoming a PR is not counted. I don't get that. What's the difference between staying in Canada as a legitimate student or worker, and a PR? You still pay all the taxes, fees, etc. It just seems like a nonsensical thing to do, turning foreign students and workers into second-class people, when in fact, the existence of these people provides jobs and security for hundreds/thousands of Canadians.

I do not think the issue here is to hate or love others opinions and situations. That would be a personal thing. But we have to respect the others opinions and feelings. You may have not the same situations or feelings to support them . But it would be unfair if you disrespect or neglect their feelings. Sure every one has a special situation based on which he formulated his opinions and feelings. I myself support and respect all the others who are opposing a part of this Bill. Even there are a positive aspect like the lost Canadian issue or those working with the Canadian armed forces, but it is full of other issues which are negative and will have negative impacts on Canada,I think.

 

[surgi]

Look, I'm not one of the guys who goes around saying "That's the process, if you don't like it, go home." I hate authoritarian people like that, I feel that the process should work for PRs and for Canada both. However:

- Canada does get to define the terms on which people become citizens. If they want to take out the pre-PR grant, that's stupid, but they can do it. They should grandfather it in, maybe protesting that would help.

- I know exactly how you feel with a family and no job. The same thing happened to me and it is a nightmare. I can completely see how waiting another year, or two years, could destroy your plans. I'm sorry about that.

- But everything didn't change. 3/4 years changes to 4/6 years. It's a change in degree, not a change in kind.

- Laws hurt everyone, all the time, that has nothing to do with democracy. My car's airbags blew out in a fender-bender, instead of cutting them off and driving, I have to pay thousands of dollars to fix them. C'est la vie.

- Saying that being forced to wait an extra year to apply for Canadian citizenship, which is still the easiest to obtain in the world, is the same as Stalinism, is just stupid. I know that it puts terrible stress on a family to immigrate and try to settle in, but if things are that tough, you should come to Alberta. There are good jobs here for people who want to work, and the rent is cheaper than the GTA and Vancouver.

And one thing that I do hate is when people argue that they've been recruited or tricked into coming to Canada. The process for qualifying for a professional license is not secret, every person can look on the Internet or write emails and see what they will have to do. Did you do that?

Of course I did that. I knew everything about the profession and license before I come to Canada. The surprise is that the same day I entered Canada ,I received an email that te whole process was changed!!! and according to the new rules I became uneligible. Can you understand what the word changes means to me??!! They are changing the rules and reguations every now and then. That is insane!! Also if you run behind mythes and say alberta are full of jobs ,that is not true for every job and profession.

 

[MrB]

I think the major issue here is that a lot of us are being judgemental about the next individuals motive, making references to phrases like personal convenience/inconvenience. No disrespect to anyone here I think such statements are highly hypocritical, we all at one point or currently do things for our convenience even more so when it concerns our family members. Where looking out for individual convenience gets dangerous is when it has a negative impact on the collective good of others. I think it's in our DNA to look out for self, however I do believe that usually when one tries to protect self interest the likelihood that other people would benefit from it is high. Putting things into perspective, the motivation for applicant "A" to contest the proposed bill may be highly personal i.e might affect his ability to become licensed as a medical doctor but it doesn't mean it would not benefit applicant "B" who is opposed to the law for a different reason. Our individual stories may vary but many of us find solidarity when we discuss issues like this.

Secondly, I believe in democracy i.e the "for the people by the people" mantra. What I detest is the dirty game of politics...I have seen a lot of you make reference to the fact that an overwhelming number of Canadians support citizenship reforms. I tend not to agree with this, what I believe is that the Canadian populace is being fed lies, they are being fed "fed cereal" by the Feds. Put them to test if you don't believe it, ask the average Canadian what they know about Citizenship laws/policies...we all know the answer to that. In essence I feel that besides the fact that the citizenship/immigration system need to be more efficient e.g investing in manpower and better resources to detect fraud...I don't think the policies are broken. As a matter of opinion, I think Canadian citizenship is still strong and just because it's relatively easier than other countries does not devalue it (it's where Canada finds it's self economically, immigration levels are on par with Canada's need to compete in the global economy as a world super power).

It's unethical when the motivation to change the citizenship laws is simply to score political points. More specifically, I have not heard one intellectual argument to support the proposed cancellation of pre PR time. When the minister was questioned, he mentioned and I paraphrase... to even the playing field, in essence to promote equality amongst PR's. No disrespect it's laughable, that my friends is what I call denial and avoiding the obvious. A person who has lived here for 4-7 years cannot be compared to a PR who landed with no Canadian experience. It is not a matter of inequality, it's a matter of Canadian experience, especially in the context of strengthening the value of Canadian Citizenship.

 

[surgi]

I think the major issue here is that a lot of us are being judgemental about the next individuals motive, making references to phrases like personal convenience/inconvenience. No disrespect to anyone here I think such statements are highly hypocritical, we all at one point or currently do things for our convenience even more so when it concerns our family members. Where looking out for individual convenience gets dangerous is when it has a negative impact on the collective good of others. I think it's in our DNA to look out for self, however I do believe that usually when one tries to protect self interest the likelihood that other people would benefit from it is high. Putting things into perspective, the motivation for applicant "A" to contest the proposed bill may be highly personal i.e might affect his ability to become licensed as a medical doctor but it doesn't mean it would not benefit applicant "B" who is opposed to the law for a different reason. Our individual stories may vary but many of us find solidarity when we discuss issues like this.

Secondly, I believe in democracy i.e the "for the people by the people" mantra. What I detest is the dirty game of politics...I have seen a lot of you make reference to the fact that an overwhelming number of Canadians support citizenship reforms. I tend not to agree with this, what I believe is that the Canadian populace is being fed lies, they are being fed "fed cereal" by the Feds. Put them to test if you don't believe it, ask the average Canadian what they know about Citizenship laws/policies...we all know the answer to that. In essence I feel that besides the fact that the citizenship/immigration system need to be more efficient e.g investing in manpower and better resources to detect fraud...I don't think the policies are broken. As a matter of opinion, I think Canadian citizenship is still strong and just because it's relatively easier than other countries does not devalue it (it's where Canada finds it's self economically, immigration levels are on par with Canada's need to compete in the global economy as a world super power).

It's unethical when the motivation to change the citizenship laws is simply to score political points. More specifically, I have not heard one intellectual argument to support the proposed cancellation of pre PR time. When the minister was questioned, he mentioned and I paraphrase... to even the playing field, in essence to promote equality amongst PR's. No disrespect it's laughable, that my friends is what I call denial and avoiding the obvious. A person who has lived here for 4-7 years cannot be compared to a PR who landed with no Canadian experience. It is not a matter of inequality, it's a matter of Canadian experience, especially in the context of strengthening the value of Canadian Citizenship.

I think to cancel the pre PR years of residence in Canada is the strongest prove which says that these propositions are not in reality to strengthen the citizenship. This group of PRs would beneficiate of only one year,i.e. they can apply after 24 months of physical stay in Canada of PR status. It has no meaning at all for those who stayed many years and got Canadian certificates or experience and of course are much better integrated in the socienty even before they apply for PR,to deprive them from this year as a bous There is someting wrong here.We have to notice that those PRs who came to Canada directly from their own countries in the new law have to spend one year more. But,those students or workers applied while they are in Canada have to stay 2 more years. Well, it may be an item which was pushed there in the text to be cancelled later on during disucussion and say well, we renonce for the pressure and cancelled one or tow items of this bill. In the same time, a more stong and unfair part about the unprecendental unilateral power of the minister to revoke or withdraw citizenship will pass!! In fact, during the second reading there was a logical objection to this part of the bill,it might be used by political parties to offer or revoke citizenship depending on political opinions and be misused by political parties to increase the number of their supporters and crash the supporters of other parties. I do not know!!

 

[on-hold]

One thing that I think really shows up this contrast is, on the one hand, people who have studied or worked in Canada for many years get their time discounted . . .

And on the other, Lost Canadians, who have never lived in the country at all, are sought out and granted citizenship.

 

[MrB]

One thing that I think really shows up this contrast is, on the one hand, people who have studied or worked in Canada for many years get their time discounted . . .

And on the other, Lost Canadians, who have never lived in the country at all, are sought out and granted citizenship.

Fantastic contrast!

 

[surgi]

One thing that I think really shows up this contrast is, on the one hand, people who have studied or worked in Canada for many years get their time discounted . . .

And on the other, Lost Canadians, who have never lived in the country at all, are sought out and granted citizenship.

If I have a good memory those lost Canadians are the result of a Bill introduced by the conservative party some years ago!!! Please correct my informations if I was wrong

 

[OHKIDDA]

Whatever your profession is, you should stick to it and not venture into academia with your analogies of the Civil Rights Movements. You don't seem to be very good at this and you're only embarrassing yourself. Like on-hold said, nobody here is arguing against your right to protest. But in some cases protests are useless and this is one of them. The fact remains that as mere PRs you are a non-voting block and hence, again, you have no standing to demand anything from this government.

Rule number 1 in academia is not to have ad hominem attacks, you silly twat. I am not in academia but neither should you be.

No PR is demanding anything, you short-sighted imbecile. PRs are future citizens...voting blocks. If there is enough strategic mass behind the protest, it maybe beneficial for someone planning to be in politics in the future to offer some sort of support for current PRs.

 

[marcus66502]

Rule number 1 in academia is not to have ad hominem attacks, you silly twat. I am not in academia but neither should you be.

No PR is demanding anything, you short-sighted imbecile. PRs are future citizens...voting blocks. If there is enough strategic mass behind the protest, it maybe beneficial for someone planning to be in politics in the future to offer some sort of support for current PRs.

"silly twat" and "short-sighted imbecile", ... that's funny. That's really funny. Talk about ad-hominem attacks.

It wasn't me that called you names. I tried to evaluate your argument and my assessment was that you have no argument, which is evidenced all the more by the fact that you have resorted to just throwing derogatory epithets at me. There was no ad hominem attack in my response. If you don't know the difference between an assessment of poor argument and ad hominem attacks, ... oh boy!

You're future voting block? No. You won't be part of any voting block until you're approved for citizenship, a process which is far from automatic. And if you think any government is going to think twice about tightening its citizenship laws for fear of angering any non-voters who see themselves as future voters, my oh my, I don't know what I'm doing responding to you.

 

[gregmah]

Guys, my time is completing on April 18...what is the hope of eligibility by that time becuase of C 4 bill

Looks like i got 69 marks and the eligbilty was 7o to pass the exam...lol

 

[parlvu]

Guys, my time is completing on April 18...what is the hope of eligibility by that time becuase of C 4 bill

Looks like i got 69 marks and the eligbilty was 7o to pass the exam...lol

Given that both the NDP and Liberals are strongly opposing the current bill as written, it should hopefully be a couple more months.

 

[OHKIDDA]

"silly twat" and "short-sighted imbecile", ... that's funny. That's really funny. Talk about ad-hominem attacks.

It is pretty funny...for me. Not for you, because it is an apt description of you. You should be concerned of this fact.
Now, I"m going to turn your switch off, you dimwitted nightlight.

 

[manianz47]

Looks like we need to open another thread just for the update [NO personal views or plain Thank You(s)]
This thread is moving in a different direction

 

[rayman_m]

Looks like we need to open another thread just for the update [NO personal views or plain Thank You(s)]
This thread is moving in a different direction

Yes, all personal stories and self advantage and convenience issues are now discussing here.. Let's leave this thread alone to those onto share their personal matters and open a new one just only for Bill's updates and news from different buddies.

 

[PMM]

Hi

If I have a good memory those lost Canadians are the result of a Bill introduced by the conservative party some years ago!!! Please correct my informations if I was wrong

1. Actually your memory maybe faulty. The 1947 Act the Conservatives were in power, the 1967 Act which created the "lost Canadians" was a Liberal Gov't

Loss of Canadian citizenship generally occurred in the following cases: (1967)

naturalization outside Canada
in the case of a minor, naturalization of a parent
service in foreign armed forces
naturalized Canadians who lived outside Canada for 10 years and did not file a declaration of retention
where a Canadian had acquired that status by descent from a Canadian parent, and who was either not lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence on the commencement of the Act or was born outside Canada afterwards, loss of citizenship could occur on the person's 22nd birthday unless the person had filed a declaration of retention between their 21st and 22nd birthday and renounced any previous nationality they possessed.

It was the Conservatives who amended the Act to bring citizenship back to the above groups.