citizenship by convenience

[surgi]

I wanted to open this topic for discussion as the previous government created a great propaganda on this topic and it was one of the major reasons why they introduced Bill C-24. Even during discussion of Bill C-6 the conservative member Mr. Tilson provoked the same words and tried to use them to stop the amendment which remove the intent to reside. I quote here parts of his speech :

( Just in response to that, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kurland was commenting in response to issues that were raised about citizenship by convenience. People apply for citizenship, and then they're gone; they just disappear. I gave the example in one of my questions the issue of Libya—
An hon. member: Lebanon.
Mr. David Tilson: —sorry, of Lebanon, where a number of people, during the uprising—I don't know how many years ago it was—all of a sudden came back, and it was the first time they'd come back.
Getting your Canadian citizenship is serious business. This is the greatest country in the world, and we should honour that. People should honour their citizenship and not just get it for the purpose of convenience. This is a serious issue. People can't just come and get that blue citizenship passport and then take off. This was a suggestion made by Mr. Kurland, and quite frankly, I think it's a good suggestion. Either they're serious about becoming a Canadian or they're not.
Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman.)

also ( The difficulty with this is that the Conservatives are in favour of some of them and opposed to others. If you're going to vote on the overall clause 1, I'd like to comment on some of the individual parts. It's difficult for us, because we're actually in support of some of them and opposed to others.
Subclause 1(2) is part of the overall repeal of the four-in-six residency requirement. We believe that as the requirement stands now, people can better help newcomers understand Canadian society, and that it helps them to better integrate into Canadian society. Wouldn't it help people, if we were to leave it the way it is, to understand Canada's social and cultural norms? Wouldn't this help people to experience these things? Wouldn't that time reinforce the value of citizenship? The amendment takes away the need to reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship. That's with respect to subclause 1(2).
Subclause 1(5) removes the intent-to-reside provision, and the effect of this is that they would no longer have to sign a declaration of their intent to reside in Canada when applying to become a citizen. I'm concerned that this clause would be interpreted as encouraging citizenship of convenience; that is, once citizenship is obtained, someone could leave the country never to return, but retain the advantages of holding a Canadian passport. This is their right, of course, but it sends the wrong message, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the value and obligation of Canadian citizenship.
Subclause 1(6), and I suppose the same would be the case with subclause 1(7)—this is changing the age from 14 to 17 and from 64 to 55.... Those requirements would no longer be set for citizen applicants when demonstrating their knowledge. The notion that citizens should be able to speak one of our two languages is not unique to Canada. It has always been a feature of our citizenship law, ever since the first one was adopted in 1947 by the government of the day under Prime Minister Mackenzie King. This is because citizenship represents full membership in our political community; it implies participation in our shared civic life. It grants the right to self-government through voting to select one's own government, or even running for public office. One cannot do these things fully, Mr. Chairman, if one doesn't have the ability to communicate with one's fellow citizens. This amendment reduces that requirement.
Subclause 1(8) repeals the intent-to-reside section. I'm concerned that this subclause would be interpreted as encouraging, in the same way I just mentioned, citizenship of convenience. That is, once citizenship is obtained, someone could leave the country never to return but could retain the advantages of holding a Canadian passport.)

I noticed that Mr. Tilson during discussion requested if there is any definition for disabled person,but he never gave us a definition of what is citizenship by convenience? The only definition given or understood by his speech the person who leaves Canada after acquiring the Canadian citizenship. Now I open this topic for discussion as I think we have to define what is a citizenship by convenience? what are the reason or root causes of those persons who leave Canada after acquiring Canadian citizenship? what are the circumstances for which those 15000 Lebanese left Canada and why they requested deportation?

 

[Politren]

Thank you for this topic surgi, yesterday I was planning to open a similar topic because I am also very interested to see a definition of Canadian of convenience.

Before I was thinking that the Canadians of convenience are those who still continue to use the weakness of the RQs to present full prove of live in Canada while they were actually all the time abroad.

So now it seems that again only the dual citizens are targeted as the actual citizens of convenience once they go abroad.
A native Canadian can do the same thing but it seems that because he/she is born here, he would not be considered as citizen of convenience. Only the dual citizens will be labeled Canadians of convenience.

So back to the question: What exactly is the definition of Canadian of convenience?

 

[Muby]

I think the answer of citizenship of conveince:-
The term "Canadians of convenience" was popularized by Canadian politician Garth Turner in 2006 in conjunction with the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon during the 2006 Israel–Lebanon conflict. It refers to people with multiple citizenship who immigrated to Canada, met the residency requirement to obtain citizenship, obtained Canadian citizenship, and moved back to their original home country while maintaining their Canadian citizenship, with those who support the term claiming they do so as a safety net.

 

[links18]

This isn't hard: A COC is supposed to be someone who immigrated to Canada, stays the minimum amount of time required to become a citizen and then leaves the country, only to assert their Canadian citizenship when they get in trouble abroad, or want to reap the benefits of living in a first world country with universal healthcare later in life.

Canada could stop all the talk about COC by introducing citizenship based taxation like big brother has, but that's not likely to happen soon.

 

[itsmyid]

Let's step away from citizens of convenience for a second, just talk about the more general term of 'residency of convenience ' - it is nothing new and seems to be pretty common, does anybody remember a couple of years ago there was this news story about multiple conservative and liberal MPs and other government officials claiming residency status in provinces they never lived in or just stayed a few days a year ? They did this to get tax benefits. In recent news, Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump actually share the same building address in the state of Delaware, where the tax rate is low - Now let's get back to the so called 'citizens of convenience ': those people stayed in Canada and paid taxes until they got the citizenship and left, while a whole bunch of Canadian born young people moved to the US right after university: we have people who never got any benefit from Canadanian government while growing up, getting education from other countries, who would be paying into thr system for 5-6years and some likely won't be back to use it , and those who grow up here, enjoying all the benefits and educational opportunities here, then move to the US before they even paid a dime to the system here - which one is a bigger problem ?

 

[Politren]

So a Canadian of convenience are only those Canadians who are born abroad and for some reason they are abroad.

If a Canadian is born here and do the very same thing, he is NOT Canadian of convenience.

Am I the only one who treat this as an double standard?


Tilson said that this is their right, so what is the actual problem because it seems like a story full with subjectivity in order to instigate one group of people to another. Being a so called Canadian of convenience is a freedom of choice and IT IS PERFETLY LEGAL.

Canadians who are born here are doing the very same thing by going in US like itsmyid mentioned above, but the only one who are blamed are only those born abroad.

 

[asaif]

Not surprisingly, this terms was never used with the previous waves of immigration from Europe, but appeared only with the current immigrant wave, many of them are from the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. The reasons are purely ideological: some still believe that Canada is a while, Christian, and European-originated country, not a multi-cultural one, and should remain like that. Those people are willing to give the citizenship to any European who can show that her/his ancestors once lived in Canada, even if she/he never lived in Canada for a single day, but are trying to make it harder for non-Europeans to acquire it.

We live in a global village nowadays. Many people leave their place of birth or childhood to live in other countries where they can have better chances in life. Hundreds of Thousands of North Americans (including Canadians) live in places allover the world (e.g., Singapore, Dubai, Hong Kong, Europe, etc) for extended periods of time where they can get opportunities they couldn't find here, or just to enjoy the warm weather year-around. This is the nature of things now with all these advances in transportation and communication means. But some people are so fixated to the past when immigration was a one-way trip without return. Their parents came here, got agricultural land for FREE, so they stayed here forever. This is not the case nowadays. People travel all the time for different reasons. Once you get the Canadian citizenship in a legitimate way, the government shouldn't have any business with where you choose to live as long as you pay your fair share of taxes like everyone else. Fortunately, the current government is a reasonable and open-minded one that understands what the new world looks like.

 

[deerestlovelybear]

For heaven sake, STOP allowing people to have dual citizenship, if one decide to become canadian citizenship, be ready to lose your original citizenship. Dual citizenship is the only reason Canadian of convenience exists.

 

[torontosm]

Tilson said that this is their right, so what is the actual problem because it seems like a story full with subjectivity in order to instigate one group of people to another. Being a so called Canadian of convenience is a freedom of choice and IT IS PERFETLY LEGAL.
Canadians who are born here are doing the very same thing by going in US like itsmyid mentioned above, but the only one who are blamed are only those born abroad.

No one says that it's illegal to be a CoC. However, I believe it is highly unethical as it places an undue burden on those Canadians who do live in Canada and pay taxes here. I have no desire to support the education of the children of someone who lived in Canada for 3 years in the 80's and has never been back since. Similarly, I'm disgusted by the fact that I have to contribute towards the healthcare of someone who stayed the minimum amount of time, left Canada and only came back when they needed some major treatment.

To all the people who don't see this as an issue, if you take a look at Canada's financial state, coupled with the aging demographics, you will see just how great an issue it is. As someone stated earlier, the only way to fix this problem will be to tax the income of Canadians globally, regardless of where they live or work (similar to how the U.S. does it). I bet that if this happened, we would see a lot less people eager to obtain the Canadian passport and disappear back to their home countries until they needed something.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

I wanted to open this topic for discussion as the previous government created a great propaganda on this topic and it was one of the major reasons why they introduced Bill C-24. Even during discussion of Bill C-6 the conservative member Mr. Tilson provoked the same words and tried to use them to stop the amendment which remove the intent to reside. I quote here parts of his speech :

( Just in response to that, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kurland was commenting in response to issues that were raised about citizenship by convenience. People apply for citizenship, and then they're gone; they just disappear. I gave the example in one of my questions the issue of Libya—
An hon. member: Lebanon.
Mr. David Tilson: —sorry, of Lebanon, where a number of people, during the uprising—I don't know how many years ago it was—all of a sudden came back, and it was the first time they'd come back.
Getting your Canadian citizenship is serious business. This is the greatest country in the world, and we should honour that. People should honour their citizenship and not just get it for the purpose of convenience. This is a serious issue. People can't just come and get that blue citizenship passport and then take off. This was a suggestion made by Mr. Kurland, and quite frankly, I think it's a good suggestion. Either they're serious about becoming a Canadian or they're not.
Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman.)

also ( The difficulty with this is that the Conservatives are in favour of some of them and opposed to others. If you're going to vote on the overall clause 1, I'd like to comment on some of the individual parts. It's difficult for us, because we're actually in support of some of them and opposed to others.
Subclause 1(2) is part of the overall repeal of the four-in-six residency requirement. We believe that as the requirement stands now, people can better help newcomers understand Canadian society, and that it helps them to better integrate into Canadian society. Wouldn't it help people, if we were to leave it the way it is, to understand Canada's social and cultural norms? Wouldn't this help people to experience these things? Wouldn't that time reinforce the value of citizenship? The amendment takes away the need to reinforce the value of Canadian citizenship. That's with respect to subclause 1(2).
Subclause 1(5) removes the intent-to-reside provision, and the effect of this is that they would no longer have to sign a declaration of their intent to reside in Canada when applying to become a citizen. I'm concerned that this clause would be interpreted as encouraging citizenship of convenience; that is, once citizenship is obtained, someone could leave the country never to return, but retain the advantages of holding a Canadian passport. This is their right, of course, but it sends the wrong message, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the value and obligation of Canadian citizenship.
Subclause 1(6), and I suppose the same would be the case with subclause 1(7)—this is changing the age from 14 to 17 and from 64 to 55.... Those requirements would no longer be set for citizen applicants when demonstrating their knowledge. The notion that citizens should be able to speak one of our two languages is not unique to Canada. It has always been a feature of our citizenship law, ever since the first one was adopted in 1947 by the government of the day under Prime Minister Mackenzie King. This is because citizenship represents full membership in our political community; it implies participation in our shared civic life. It grants the right to self-government through voting to select one's own government, or even running for public office. One cannot do these things fully, Mr. Chairman, if one doesn't have the ability to communicate with one's fellow citizens. This amendment reduces that requirement.
Subclause 1(8) repeals the intent-to-reside section. I'm concerned that this subclause would be interpreted as encouraging, in the same way I just mentioned, citizenship of convenience. That is, once citizenship is obtained, someone could leave the country never to return but could retain the advantages of holding a Canadian passport.)

I noticed that Mr. Tilson during discussion requested if there is any definition for disabled person,but he never gave us a definition of what is citizenship by convenience? The only definition given or understood by his speech the person who leaves Canada after acquiring the Canadian citizenship. Now I open this topic for discussion as I think we have to define what is a citizenship by convenience? what are the reason or root causes of those persons who leave Canada after acquiring Canadian citizenship? what are the circumstances for which those 15000 Lebanese left Canada and why they requested deportation?

I find this whole convenience debate non-sensical to say the very least.

1. Once someone gets Canadian citizenship, the Charter guarantees him or her mobility rights- you cannot ban people from leaving the country once they are citizens. If the government actually stopped whining about this and provided decent jobs for people many will not consider leaving. You can tell from the tone of the MP "Canada is the best country in the word blah blah blah" that the Tories are simply arrogant and have turned Canada into a much hated country when at one time it was in fact loved by many across the world. Most people leave because they want better job opportunities elsewhere.

2. Someone suggested banning dual citizenship- why? Most developed countries allow it as they are much more secure than this Tory MP in knowing they are great countries.

We live in a globalised world as Asaif said and some people will stay and some will leave. Personally, I got my citizenship and like my life here. I've paid into the system in spite of not having a permanent job (I did consultancy work), paying higher taxes than most people, never claimed anything from the government, abided by the rules, and even volunteered in my community. Now that my contracts have expired, I would love to keep living here and I'm applying, but if I don't get a job in say 12 months, and managed to get an offer from overseas, why should I refuse it??? Makes absolutely no sense and that's why C24 is hopefully going to be repealed.

Having said that, the more outrageous issue in my opinion is birthright citizenship, which most developed countries have abolished years ago and yet Canada and the US continue to practice. This is a problem.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

No one says that it's illegal to be a CoC. However, I believe it is highly unethical as it places an undue burden on those Canadians who do live in Canada and pay taxes here. I have no desire to support the education of the children of someone who lived in Canada for 3 years in the 80's and has never been back since. Similarly, I'm disgusted by the fact that I have to contribute towards the healthcare of someone who stayed the minimum amount of time, left Canada and only came back when they needed some major treatment.

To all the people who don't see this as an issue, if you take a look at Canada's financial state, coupled with the aging demographics, you will see just how great an issue it is. As someone stated earlier, the only way to fix this problem will be to tax the income of Canadians globally, regardless of where they live or work (similar to how the U.S. does it). I bet that if this happened, we would see a lot less people eager to obtain the Canadian passport and disappear back to their home countries until they needed something.

Very convenient for you to say behind your keyboard- until a situation develops when you have to leave Canada (or your loved ones) for a while. Let's see what you think then.

Canada's financial state is the result of incompetent politicians mismanging the economy over soooo many years. I know since I used to work for the government (I'm an economist btw). Whilst I'd argue that there are many other problems facing the economy: corruption (a big one), low productivity, excessive reliance on oil and the US economy, insular financial practices, even the one you're presenting (health bills of people out of the country for too long) can simply be addressed by saying that non-residents cannot be entitled to public healthcare and would have to finance their healthcare privately. Now this would enter a grey area legally but depending on how it's constructed a solution can be achieved.

Citizenship-based taxation is one of the most Orwellian ideas ever, and it's no wonder that only the US and Eritrea do it. I hope Canada doesn't follow suit and am pretty certain it won't anytime soon- many rich Canadians who live overseas and are well-connected politically won't allow it anyway .

 

[Politren]

No one says that it's illegal to be a CoC. However, I believe it is highly unethical as it places an undue burden on those Canadians who do live in Canada and pay taxes here. I have no desire to support the education of the children of someone who lived in Canada for 3 years in the 80's and has never been back since. Similarly, I'm disgusted by the fact that I have to contribute towards the healthcare of someone who stayed the minimum amount of time, left Canada and only came back when they needed some major treatment.

To all the people who don't see this as an issue, if you take a look at Canada's financial state, coupled with the aging demographics, you will see just how great an issue it is. As someone stated earlier, the only way to fix this problem will be to tax the income of Canadians globally, regardless of where they live or work (similar to how the U.S. does it). I bet that if this happened, we would see a lot less people eager to obtain the Canadian passport and disappear back to their home countries until they needed something.

I noticed that usually the focus is again only to those Canadians who are born abroad. The natives are doing the exactly same things.

So if a Canadian is born abroad is unethical, but if one does the same thing and was born here is perfectly fine I guess.
I am sure that the natives who are doing the same stuff are far bigger number compared to those born abroad.
It is very convenient to blame the immigrants for everything.

 

[Muby]

Canadian is canadian no matter what..... Everyone should allowed to travel and live whatever he want to live is his choices. If people find out canada is there home after the citizenship, then welcome but if the found the other place where they will be happy then the should be free. I think is not fair to said you most prove that you will live here after you become a citizen

 

[links18]

I noticed that usually the focus is again only to those Canadians who are born abroad. The natives are doing the exactly same things.

So if a Canadian is born abroad is unethical, but if one does the same thing and was born here is perfectly fine I guess.
I am sure that the natives who are doing the same stuff are far bigger number compared to those born abroad.
It is very convenient to blame the immigrants for everything.

Although "natural born citizen" has no real legal meaning in Canada (unlike the US), it does have a cultural and political meaning. Many people think those born Canadian in Canada should have privileges naturalized citizens shouldn't--something about the--to use Heidegger's term--"throwedness" of birth as opposed to having made a conscious decision as an adult to assume the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. Yes, many people are just fine with the idea of "second class citizenship" or "tiered citizenship." In my opinion, this makes a mockery of the entire concept of citizenship, but many people don't agree.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

At any rate, it seems like C6 will receive Royal Assent before Parliament goes on recess in the summer. Sad how Harper has changed the fabric of Canada over 10 years, venturing into the realm of policies that would violate fundamental UN charters. The only thing I agreed with him on was revoking citizenship of convicted terrorists with dual citizenship.

The same issue is also present in European countries. Tens of thousands of UK citizens (both born and naturalised) live in Dubai, Hong Kong, and other parts of the world and yet the British government is not stupid enough to think about revoking their citizenships. It is their choice and their life. As long as they haven't broken any laws there should be no problem. I find it funny how some immigrants (even in this forum) act "tough" and "right wing" on this issue. Capital H hypocrites- stop worrying about other people and focus on your own lives.