Bill C-24 Second Reading on February 27th:

[paw339]

I will be applying under the new rules unless they bring in a transition period and will gladly sign any document saying that I "intend to reside" because I've made Canada my home and love it here.

I was just trying to make the point with a bit of humour; but obviously badly and insensitively, that I could understand why someone from a potentially unstable part of the world would want to get a passport of convenience "just in case".

I wasn't agreeing that it was right, which is why I agree with the clause being brought in.

 

[CanuckForEver]

I will be applying under the new rules unless they bring in a transition period and will gladly sign any document saying that I "intend to reside" because I've made Canada my home and love it here.

I was just trying to make the point with a bit of humour; but obviously badly and insensitively, that I could understand why someone from a potentially unstable part of the world would want to get a passport of convenience "just in case".

I wasn't agreeing that it was right, which is why I agree with the clause being brought in.

You make little to no sense. Is it possible that you're a CIC/Conservative mole? given the fact that you pathetically try (and fail) to create an opinion that "intend to stay" is an innocuous clause.

 

[taleodor]

I will be applying under the new rules unless they bring in a transition period and will gladly sign any document saying that I "intend to reside" because I've made Canada my home and love it here.

I was just trying to make the point with a bit of humour; but obviously badly and insensitively, that I could understand why someone from a potentially unstable part of the world would want to get a passport of convenience "just in case".

I wasn't agreeing that it was right, which is why I agree with the clause being brought in.

You guys make a little mistake thinking that everything is smooth and nice here, and works as it should. Glad for you, if your experience was nice and smooth. Say, for me, I will remember forever how Jason Kenney literally 'lied to my face' (from the TV screen) saying that my case (and cases of 10 thousands other people whose cases were forgotten sometimes for years) didn't exist. He said (being an immigration minister) that no one is waiting for that long. Later, we had a protest and several public campaigns later on, and only after that our cases started moving.

Point is, for a lot of people here, probably for most, the Immigration process didn't go smoothly. And frequently it was only the fault of the Conservative government and their complete mismanagement.

So, your mistake is you assume the best. You think, if you do everything right, you're safe. And that's completely wrong. If you don't fight for your rights, nobody will. If something nasty happens to you, you'll find yourself alone, hoping that public will pick your case for discussion. The 'intent to reside' clause is a land mine, and no one knows when it how it goes off. Also from a legal standpoint, that is a complete bs, because you can never really prove intent (or the lack of the intent). So, I believe, it's better to create awareness before nasty things start to happen.

That's why I think any speculation on this subject is pointless. Opposing the bill and Conservative party in general, I want to achieve a very simple thing, which is clarity, transparency and equality. This is one of the main principles of a normal democratic society, which is completely broken in the recent Conservatives' actions. And maybe some day, you'll be thankful to those fighting against this bill for trying to protect your rights.

 

[taleodor]

You make little to no sense. Is it possible that you're a CIC/Conservative mole? given the fact that you pathetically try (and fail) to create an opinion that "intend to stay" is an innocuous clause.

I hope, (s)he is not. I wouldn't expect a conservative mole to be anything than 9to5er.

 

[paw339]

CanuckForEver My wife often accuses me of talking no sense

I believe its an innocuous clause because I've seen a similar clause brought in by New Zealand without problems and also with very little fuss, I thought that would be useful information to share. You obviously don't agree with my assessment.

If I had one major criticism of C-24 it would be that there isn't a transition period so current Permanent Residents still have the option of getting citizenship after 3 years.

 

[taleodor]

CanuckForEver My wife often accuses me of talking no sense

I believe its an innocuous clause because I've seen a similar clause brought in by New Zealand without problems and also with very little fuss, I thought that would be useful information to share. You obviously don't agree with my assessment.

If I had one major criticism of C-24 it would be that there isn't a transition period so current Permanent Residents still have the option of getting citizenship after 3 years.

This clause brought together with the out of court revocation of citizenship becomes very worrisome. Again, I don't trust things to go smooth and 'with very little fuss' because they are not going smooth elsewhere. Just look at the TFW program. A recent case, when CIC sends home a Hotel Manager from France without issuing a work permit because of 'Moratorium'... The Government shouldn't be able to 'change rules while playing'. There has to be accountability.

 

[paw339]

You guys make a little mistake thinking that everything is smooth and nice here, and works as it should. Glad for you, if your experience was nice and smooth. Say, for me, I will remember forever how Jason Kenney literally 'lied to my face' (from the TV screen) saying that my case (and cases of 10 thousands other people whose cases were forgotten sometimes for years) didn't exist. He said (being an immigration minister) that no one is waiting for that long. Later, we had a protest and several public campaigns later on, and only after that our cases started moving.

Point is, for a lot of people here, probably for most, the Immigration process didn't go smoothly. And frequently it was only the fault of the Conservative government and their complete mismanagement.

So, your mistake is you assume the best. You think, if you do everything right, you're safe. And that's completely wrong. If you don't fight for your rights, nobody will. If something nasty happens to you, you'll find yourself alone, hoping that public will pick your case for discussion. The 'intent to reside' clause is a land mine, and no one knows when it how it goes off. Also from a legal standpoint, that is a complete bs, because you can never really prove intent (or the lack of the intent). So, I believe, it's better to create awareness before nasty things start to happen.

That's why I think any speculation on this subject is pointless. Opposing the bill and Conservative party in general, I want to achieve a very simple thing, which is clarity, transparency and equality. This is one of the main principles of a normal democratic society, which is completely broken in the recent Conservatives' actions. And maybe some day, you'll be thankful to those fighting against this bill for trying to protect your rights.

Taleodor I think you raise a good point about individual experience. I have a positive view of CIC because all of my interactions with them have been positive with no issues other than "normal" processing delays.

I agree the TFW program is a shambles and the attempts to stop the abuse of the program by individual companies has been badly handled and far too "reactive" instead of being planned. However I think its far too simple to just blame the conservatives when a lot of the problems are systemic and predate their watch.

Regards

 

[us2yow]

and whats even more surprising is the "resounding unanimity" in what the experts thought...

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/national/Harper+governments+immigration+bill+goes+second+reading/9884632/story.html


"All the experts at the committee hearings agreed that this bill is probably unconstitutional," she said.


I mean this is embarrassingly BIG in terms of looking hypocritical while accusing the lawyers of being the same (Freudian slip ?). And then we go around criticizing rogue nations for not being this and not doing that...when....when...in our own backyard we are doing a smattering of those same things. Muzzling, limiting debate, avoidant tactics etc.

 

[turboracer]

So whats everyone's guess about this new law when will it be in effect?

Thanks

 

[Tolerance]

You guys make a little mistake thinking that everything is smooth and nice here, and works as it should. Glad for you, if your experience was nice and smooth. Say, for me, I will remember forever how Jason Kenney literally 'lied to my face' (from the TV screen) saying that my case (and cases of 10 thousands other people whose cases were forgotten sometimes for years) didn't exist. He said (being an immigration minister) that no one is waiting for that long. Later, we had a protest and several public campaigns later on, and only after that our cases started moving.

Point is, for a lot of people here, probably for most, the Immigration process didn't go smoothly. And frequently it was only the fault of the Conservative government and their complete mismanagement.

So, your mistake is you assume the best. You think, if you do everything right, you're safe. And that's completely wrong. If you don't fight for your rights, nobody will. If something nasty happens to you, you'll find yourself alone, hoping that public will pick your case for discussion. The 'intent to reside' clause is a land mine, and no one knows when it how it goes off. Also from a legal standpoint, that is a complete bs, because you can never really prove intent (or the lack of the intent). So, I believe, it's better to create awareness before nasty things start to happen.

That's why I think any speculation on this subject is pointless. Opposing the bill and Conservative party in general, I want to achieve a very simple thing, which is clarity, transparency and equality. This is one of the main principles of a normal democratic society, which is completely broken in the recent Conservatives' actions. And maybe some day, you'll be thankful to those fighting against this bill for trying to protect your rights.

You are a poet among immigrants . Wonderfully written.

 

[RAY2112]

Well Written. We are all in the same boat. So please guys fight for your rights.

You guys make a little mistake thinking that everything is smooth and nice here, and works as it should. Glad for you, if your experience was nice and smooth. Say, for me, I will remember forever how Jason Kenney literally 'lied to my face' (from the TV screen) saying that my case (and cases of 10 thousands other people whose cases were forgotten sometimes for years) didn't exist. He said (being an immigration minister) that no one is waiting for that long. Later, we had a protest and several public campaigns later on, and only after that our cases started moving.

Point is, for a lot of people here, probably for most, the Immigration process didn't go smoothly. And frequently it was only the fault of the Conservative government and their complete mismanagement.

So, your mistake is you assume the best. You think, if you do everything right, you're safe. And that's completely wrong. If you don't fight for your rights, nobody will. If something nasty happens to you, you'll find yourself alone, hoping that public will pick your case for discussion. The 'intent to reside' clause is a land mine, and no one knows when it how it goes off. Also from a legal standpoint, that is a complete bs, because you can never really prove intent (or the lack of the intent). So, I believe, it's better to create awareness before nasty things start to happen.

That's why I think any speculation on this subject is pointless. Opposing the bill and Conservative party in general, I want to achieve a very simple thing, which is clarity, transparency and equality. This is one of the main principles of a normal democratic society, which is completely broken in the recent Conservatives' actions. And maybe some day, you'll be thankful to those fighting against this bill for trying to protect your rights.

 

[sazamizi]

One more thing that I was thinking about is to broadly encourage our friends who have already received their citizenship to vote for NON CONSERVATIVE parties such as NDP or LIBERAL in the next election.
We should start from now!

Unfortunately, I have seen most Canadians are careless about voting. I believe if most people vote , the Conservatives will be heavily defeated in the 2015 election. If Bill C-24 is passed, the government needs some time to write down the instructions and train staff. It definitely takes time (perhaps one year). So we need to retaliate against this unconstitutional bill by voting and encouraging our friends to vote next year.

Hope good days come up!
Best,
S.

 

[Marypetty]

OMG, such person can still be stripped from Canadian citizenship (unless born in Canada). Then they become stateless. Here is a use case for you: http://rabble.ca/news/2014/05/i-was-born-canada-my-canadian-citizenship-has-been-stripped-away

Perhaps the man's parents were not Canadian citizens or had Canadian citizenship. There are documented cases of couples having their baby in Canada while not being being PRs or citizenships. This is the only way I can see that the CIC issued a passport in error to someone not entitled to one.

 

[zardoz]

One more thing that I was thinking about is to broadly encourage our friends who have already received their citizenship to vote for NON CONSERVATIVE parties such as NDP or LIBERAL in the next election.
We should start from now!

Unfortunately, I have seen most Canadians are careless about voting. I believe if most people vote , the Conservatives will be heavily defeated in the 2015 election. If Bill C-24 is passed, the government needs some time to write down the instructions and train staff. It definitely takes time (perhaps one year). So we need to retaliate against this unconstitutional bill by voting and encouraging our friends to vote next year.

Hope good days come up!
Best,
S.

You are assuming that preparation for the Bill C-24 becoming law hasn't already started. It may well be the case that systems are already being put in place and all CIC needs to do is click a switch. Don't assume anything at this point.

 

[rayman_m]

Citizenship law says, the person born in Canada is a Canadian citizen except there are some rules which applies to certain individual's child born while was working as diplomat, soldiers etc. Child born to the visitor in Canada as per rule is still Canadian (which Harper call passport baby but they are not touching this provision yet under the new C-24 bill).

I suspect, they probably taken his passport way on the confusion of diplomat issue. It appears from the person story, his parent may have been in diplomatic job before or during he was born. Now CIC left the burden of proof on him.