citizenship by convenience

[nope]

Is that a crime to be COC? I don't have problem with anyone being COC, doesn't affect my life and I simply don't care, and To those people who care so much about it and think how horrible it is :Why not just do your job and make this country more attractive so there won't be any so called COC because they all want to come and stay and don't want to be anywhere else

Yep, this is an excellent point -- because COC is not an actual category, it's really just a slur. People who don't like the phenomenon are arguing for their right to call someone this; people who don't like the implications of the term are arguing that it is unfair. Since almost no one is rude enough to call someone a COC to their face, in reality, this is a problem that is limited to the comment threads of newspaper articles and forums like this. It's not much different from 'white trash' or many other slurs, all of which basically imply that someone is living their life in an unapproved way, or is simply in an unacceptable category.

 

[Leon]

If you want to use marriage as an analogy, you can divorce by renouncing Canadian citizenship. If you are not dual, you can take up the new citizenship and renounce your Canadian citizenship. After all if you have no intention of going back to Canada or use it as insurance, why bother keeping it. So as long as you keep citizenship despite your "plead" that you will never go back to Canada, you can be CoC.

None of us own a crystal ball to predict the future. I don't think anyone can really say for sure that they will never go back to anywhere. Why renounce a citizenship when you don't know if you'll want to go back?

If a person immigrates to Canada and keeps their homeland citizenship as a dual, are they then a CoC of their home country?

 

[screech339]

Is that a crime to be COC? I don't have problem with anyone being COC, doesn't affect my life and I simply don't care, and To those people who care so much about it and think how horrible it is :Why not just do your job and make this country more attractive so there won't be any so called COC because they all want to come and stay and don't want to be anywhere else

It is not a crime to being CoC. It is no difference from millionaires paying much less taxes / no taxes than middle class pay their taxes, getting same access to benefits. They are legally able to do this through legal loopholes. Take a look at millionaires living outside Canada while their family is in mansions in Canada. The family access to benefits they don't pay into. Does this mean they are criminals? No. Does it make it right? No.

So as long as you are okay with CoC, you are okay with rich people not paying their "fair" share in taxes.

 

[itsmyid]

If you want to use marriage as an analogy, you can divorce by renouncing Canadian citizenship. If you are not dual, you can take up the new citizenship and renounce your Canadian citizenship. After all if you have no intention of going back to Canada or use it as insurance, why bother keeping it. So as long as you keep citizenship despite your "plead" that you will never go back to Canada, you can be CoC.

Since we are on this marriage topic: people don't just divorce when it falls apart- many chose to stay married for various reasons, children, finance, career - ask Hilary Clinton why she is still married to Bill after so many sex scandals. Life is complicated and people have to make decisions for what's best for themselves

 

[itsmyid]

It is not a crime to being CoC. It is no difference from millionaires paying much less taxes / no taxes than middle class pay their taxes, getting same access to benefits. They are legally able to do this through legal loopholes. Take a look at millionaires living outside Canada while their family is in mansions in Canada. The family access to benefits they don't pay into. Does this mean they are criminals? No. Does it make it right? No.

So as long as you are okay with CoC, you are okay with rich people not paying their "fair" share in taxes.

The property taxes of one 'mansion' is worth more than an average middle class worker's income tax, not to mention their higher living expenses pay the sales tax and service they use - and since they are more likely to use private school and private health care with their own money, so no, I have no problem with it and I don't see how they use more benefits and pay less into the system than others

 

[screech339]

The property taxes of one 'mansion' is worth more than an average middle class worker's income tax, not to mention their higher living expenses pay the sales tax and service they use - and since they are more likely to use private school and private health care with their own money, so no, I have no problem with it and I don't see how they use more benefits and pay less into the system than others

You do realize that property tax goes to municipal revenue. A small percentage goes to local school cost. None of it goes to Fed to pay for medical health care cost.

 

[torontosm]

If he/she then returns, then these are the scenarios:
1. He/she returns with his/her family and are low, working, or middle-class individuals: Then they will need to have a job especially in expensive cities like Toronto and Vancouver; they won't come back if they didn't secure a job. This means they will pay income tax and tax on whatever savings they have. As taxpaying citizens they will be entitled to use OHIP, send their children to public schools (or borrow etc if they want to go private). This cannot be objectionable to anyone even some of the elements in this forum.
2. He/she returns with his/her family and are upper middle-class or upper class individuals: Then they are reasonably well-off that they won't leech off the system. Such people are more likely to send their children to private schools, to top universities rather than Canadian ones, and wouldn't need torontosm or the other person's money. Eventually, they will have to supplement their income either through starting their own business or finding a job.

Really? In your simplistic view, these are the only two scenarios which could play out? Let me offer a few more for you.

1) He/She never actually returns to Canada to live, but continues to reside overseas. However, the father falls ill and needs a heart bypass. They decide to temporarily return to Canada, use the public health system and then once things are better, return to their lives overseas. Yes, it's healthcare fraud but they could always say that it was their intention to live in Canada, but they changed their minds. They get the benefit while leaving taxpayers with the bill.
2) The family never returns to Canada to live. However, the kids (and the kids of the kids) all attend public school and/or university at lower tuition rates. Canada never benefits but has to pick up the bill again.
3) The family continues to live overseas where a war breaks out. They rely upon the Canadian government to evacuate them to Canada. Once teh war is over, they return back to where they were living. Canadian taxpayers pick up the tab.

All three of these have occurred repeatedly already, and are not hypothetical situations.

So, in your perfect world, there may not be any opportunity for abuse. However, in real life, we have already seen that this is not the case.

 

[Politren]

Really? In your simplistic view, these are the only two scenarios which could play out? Let me offer a few more for you.

1) He/She never actually returns to Canada to live, but continues to reside overseas. However, the father falls ill and needs a heart bypass. They decide to temporarily return to Canada, use the public health system and then once things are better, return to their lives overseas. Yes, it's healthcare fraud but they could always say that it was their intention to live in Canada, but they changed their minds. They get the benefit while leaving taxpayers with the bill.
2) The family never returns to Canada to live. However, the kids (and the kids of the kids) all attend public school and/or university at lower tuition rates. Canada never benefits but has to pick up the bill again.
3) The family continues to live overseas where a war breaks out. They rely upon the Canadian government to evacuate them to Canada. Once teh war is over, they return back to where they were living. Canadian taxpayers pick up the tab.

All three of these have occurred repeatedly already, and are not hypothetical situations.

So, in your perfect world, there may not be any opportunity for abuse. However, in real life, we have already seen that this is not the case.

You still keep on ignoring the fact that in Canada lives a huge volume of burden who doesn't pay enough of taxes but at the same time they use much more. I think you were the one who posted how much billions the immigrants actually cost.

This is way bigger burden for Canada and the more they stay here the bigger the bill for the Canada gets.

 

[Lux et Veritas]

Really? In your simplistic view, these are the only two scenarios which could play out? Let me offer a few more for you.

1) He/She never actually returns to Canada to live, but continues to reside overseas. However, the father falls ill and needs a heart bypass. They decide to temporarily return to Canada, use the public health system and then once things are better, return to their lives overseas. Yes, it's healthcare fraud but they could always say that it was their intention to live in Canada, but they changed their minds. They get the benefit while leaving taxpayers with the bill.
2) The family never returns to Canada to live. However, the kids (and the kids of the kids) all attend public school and/or university at lower tuition rates. Canada never benefits but has to pick up the bill again.
3) The family continues to live overseas where a war breaks out. They rely upon the Canadian government to evacuate them to Canada. Once teh war is over, they return back to where they were living. Canadian taxpayers pick up the tab.

All three of these have occurred repeatedly already, and are not hypothetical situations.

So, in your perfect world, there may not be any opportunity for abuse. However, in real life, we have already seen that this is not the case.

1. Your scenario 1 is healthcare fraud and having known so many people who work both in Service Ontario and hospitals the fraud detection rates are actually quite high. Plus even if they are temporarily resident they will still have to wait months for the heart by-pass surgery, during which they will need to finance themselves. It's not like they come monday and the surgery is on tuesday.
2. Once again you don't get it: if the children come for schooling/university they'll stay here for years, and children can't finance themselves they need their families (at least 1 parent) to come back and support them. This parent will either need a job or is rich enough not to care about leeching off some Pakistani bigot on this forum.
3. Scenario 3 only happened once in 2006, and there's a simple solution to it: don't make it the responsibility of the state to evacuate people. Since these people knew that Lebanon is already a war zone they went back knowing the risk. That's not such a big deal and other developed countries do that as well.

1 and 2 simply don't apply and 3 is hardly the biggest issue in the world. But to bigots like you they are the be-all and end-all.

 

[screech339]

1. Your scenario 1 is healthcare fraud and having known so many people who work both in Service Ontario and hospitals the fraud detection rates are actually quite high. Plus even if they are temporarily resident they will still have to wait months for the heart by-pass surgery, during which they will need to finance themselves. It's not like they come monday and the surgery is on tuesday.
2. Once again you don't get it: if the children come for schooling/university they'll stay here for years, and children can't finance themselves they need their families (at least 1 parent) to come back and support them. This parent will either need a job or is rich enough not to care about leeching off some Pakistani bigot on this forum.
3. Scenario 3 only happened once in 2006, and there's a simple solution to it: don't make it the responsibility of the state to evacuate people. Since these people knew that Lebanon is already a war zone they went back knowing the risk. That's not such a big deal and other developed countries do that as well.

1 and 2 simply don't apply and 3 is hardly the biggest issue in the world. But to bigots like you they are the be-all and end-all.

It is not health care fraud if they stayed in the province long enough (6 months) before heading back to home country. You think that they will get all better with a month of treatment?

They can move to the province of least resistance. They wont go to ontario where they have to wait 3 months before qualifying for health coverage. They can go to alberta when they can get coverage from day 1. Stay long enough to get better and probably by the time they get better they met the minimum required stay to avoid getting ding with fraud. You think they will stay for less than 6 months for cancer treatments if detected early enough?


As for scenario 3: yes it has happened once before and thus can happen again. Not only call on Canada to bail them out for war turmoil. But one can demand Canada to bail them out if they caught trouble with the local laws as well. Fahmy is a good example. He used Egyptian passport instead of Canada passport and wanted Canada to bail him out. The Australian that bailed out used Australian passport. Fahmy did not. There are many Canadians / dual abroad that got in trouble with the laws and want Canada to bail them out. They think they are above local laws because they are Canadian?

 

[Politren]

It is not health care fraud if they stayed in the province long enough (6 months) before heading back to home country. You think that they will get all better with a month of treatment?

They can move to the province of least resistance. They wont go to ontario where they have to wait 3 months before qualifying for health coverage. They can go to alberta when they can get coverage from day 1. Stay long enough to get better and probably by the time they get better they met the minimum required stay to avoid getting ding with fraud. You think they will stay for less than 6 months for cancer treatments if detected early enough?

Aren't all those who live here and don't pay enough taxes to pay for what they get here cost much more for the health care? Sponsored parents and grand parents cost way more. Why you don't complain about them when they come here to use severely the health care and never pay a dime for it. You have a guaranteed supply from them every single year.

 

[screech339]

Aren't all those who live here and don't pay enough taxes to pay for what they get here cost much more for the health care? Sponsored parents and grand parents cost way more. Why you don't complain about them when they come here to use severely the health care and never pay a dime for it. You have a guaranteed supply from them every single year.

As told before, sponsored parents / grandparents are a burden on health care. At least we have a way to control that. By either killing the pgp program all together or putting a cap on pgp application.

Killing the program may make Canada "cold" and "heartless". But keeping a small cap on pgp, it allows Canada to be compassionate. Remember PGP is based on compassion.

 

[Politren]

As told before, sponsored parents / grandparents are a burden on health care.

People in my situation (low end employed) are also burden for the health system. We just cant pay the taxes because we are poor. Do you know how many hundreds of thousand people are in my situation living in Canada? Now multiply that burden and see that exactly those living here are the biggest problem for the budget.

 

[screech339]

People in my situation (low end employed) are also burden for the health system. We just cant pay the taxes because we are poor. Do you know how many hundreds of thousand people are in my situation living in Canada? Now multiply that burden and see that exactly those living here are the biggest problem for the budget.

You talked about "missed opportunities" to work abroad with company for 3 year assignment because you are not Canadian. Well that sounds like a good paying job working abroad for 3 years. Well how can you be in a "low paying" job to a "well paying job" over one position? Doesn't make sense to be getting paid low wage here only to get "well paying" job abroad within the same company. Are we talking 10-15/hour pay difference between the two positions.

 

[Politren]

You talked about "missed opportunities" to work abroad with company for 3 year assignment because you are not Canadian. Well that sounds like a good paying job working abroad for 3 years. Well how can you be in a "low paying" job to a "well paying job" over one position? Doesn't make sense to be getting paid low wage here only to get "well paying" job abroad within the same company. Are we talking 10-15/hour pay difference between the two positions.

That opportunity is long time gone already. It was my agreement to accept the lower level here compared to my credentials. I was overqualified for that position here, the lack of Canadian experience and being a PR forced me to by in such position. And when finally a realistic opportunity showed up for 3 years contract abroad I missed it only because of the risk to put in danger all the PR.
So I ended up continuing working as overqualified in a low end position.

Pretty common story for an immigrant in Canada. Nothing special.
But for all the time me being here I just feel how much more I use and continuing paying just a fraction of what I get here, hence long time burden for Canada by living here and working at the low end.