Citizenship test: Collective action required, or expect endless delays, years. Example of the effective lobbyng of people awaiting spousal sponsorship
- Thread starter piotrqc
- Start date
This has been said before but if you want you can also send feedback through: https://secure.cic.gc.ca/feedback-retroaction/feedback-retroaction-eng.aspx
Sure they see your name, see the same first line and delete your email daily. When lobbying crosses over to being a nuisance it becomes less effective.
The unspoken side of this, the other side of the coin here, alludes to the nature and import of the grievance and evaluating what is a worthwhile cause.
Your priorities are personal, of course.
But no advanced degrees in sociology or political science are necessary to recognize general parameters for what constitutes a *just* or meritorious cause, let alone a compelling or necessary cause, and assess some rough sense of priority. Not all activist mobilization is about a just cause.
Some of us have emphasized the "cause" here is bogus (notwithstanding the OP continuing to repeat the lie that this is about a horror scenario threatening the cancellation of citizenship applications, and just recently claiming the "disaster scenario seems to be confirmed . . ." notwithstanding there is NOT the slightest whiff of that happening), with the focus of the push back mostly about reassuring citizenship applicants that NO, it is NOT necessary to take to the streets to protect your rights as PRs, to block the cancellation of your citizenship applications.
But your reference to priorities highlights there is another reason for pushing back here. Having to do with priorities generally and the role of activism and mobilization in our western style democracy.
And again, your reference to priorities brings up the other side of all this, not just questions about whether the cause is meritorious but also about the methods employed. Sometimes the most effective approach to an issue is to write one's MP. Sometimes a letter to the editor or its equivalent. Sure, sometimes a cause demands taking to the streets.
And in this respect, your comment reminds us that in weighing priorities, we should not overlook the importance of methods. It is not just how meritorious a cause is, but also about what methods are employed to advance the cause.
And sometimes the methods chosen by this or that activist will reveal there is something else going on.
There is, as has been suggested here, indeed a tendency of many to summarily dismiss activists, to dismiss mobilizations as fringe distractions. Which is one more reason why those who are truly, genuinely interested in having a positive influence (I have endeavored to be among this group) will, so to say, pick-their-battles carefully. Those of us who have attempted to make a difference are all too aware of the damage done genuinely important causes by unfounded, unwarranted, ill-advised, and misguided "mobilizations," which seem to be increasing in number these days. More than a few appear to be deliberately about causing dissension and division rather than advancing the cause they claim to support. And, rather often, this is revealed as much in the methods employed . . . sometimes revealing this or that so-called activist is more about causing problems than solving anything.
Which brings this back to the OP here. Claiming to email IRCC "every day." Does that strike anyone as a reasonable or rational approach to influencing anyone, let alone a big bureaucracy like IRCC? Isn't that almost the definition of harassment? A blatant nuisance?
It is for certain NOT an effective activist tactic.
I doubt that IRCC "deletes" the emails. I have NO doubt, however, that repeated emails, let alone those repeated daily, have near if not totally zero positive influence. And, actually, probably the opposite.
So what is the purpose? What is the objective?
I do not know the OP and will not guess the OP's motives. But this pattern of activity will more likely make it MORE difficult for affected IRCC clients to have influence. This pattern of activity seriously risks a broad negative reaction which will tend to be more dismissive, more negative, toward those who make an effort to communicate with IRCC to express how delays in processing are having a negative impact on their real lives and otherwise express the need to make a concerted effort to resume more normal-like processing. It is very difficult to see how the OP would not know this, be well aware of just how counterproductive this would almost certainly be. I cannot say that it is the OP's intent to actually undermine efforts to have a real and positive influence in how IRCC approaches the current problems, but given the grossly hyperbolic character of the OP's characterization of what is, allegedly, at stake, in conjunction with this blatantly counterproductive and abusive activity, makes it rather difficult to ignore what the smell-test tends to expose.
They already have a process in place, They just need to start Zoom interviews
The hearing will last 30 to 90 minutes. At the hearing, the citizenship officer will ask you questions orally to see if you meet the conditions of citizenship, including knowledge of Canada. After your hearing, we will send you a letter with the results.
If you passed the interview, the letter will tell you the date of your citizenship ceremony.
The hearing will last 30 to 90 minutes. At the hearing, the citizenship officer will ask you questions orally to see if you meet the conditions of citizenship, including knowledge of Canada. After your hearing, we will send you a letter with the results.
If you passed the interview, the letter will tell you the date of your citizenship ceremony.
Good morning sir .
What are you talking about ?
For those who were lucky enough to have already passed the tests in personn at IRCC CIC offices before the covid19 blocking, yes, everyone knows that they receive ceremonies online by zoom to confirm their citizenship ... But for those who have seen their exams canceled until further notice without date, or those awaiting an appointment for a test, there is no any official news ...
Do you know something that everyone ignor, or just speculation ? ... What are your sources ?
Thank you .
Would it scale though? 30-90 minutes PER applicant is a lot of time when you have tens of thousands of people in line.
Unless he provides a source or a link ... it seems to be false information ... probably launched to give false hope and make people wait for nothing.
Between 30 and 90 minutes is MUCH TOO MUCH for 20 questions, even orally and person by person.
My intuition, and a logic, suggests that this is a fake ... Wait and see. (But we must act).
The way I interpreted their comment was not that this was already in place, but that a solution to the problem -- using Zoom -- already exists and that the IRCC should use that. I mean, I think they only intended to suggest that as a possibility, not as "false information." I may be wrong though.
More or less, it's never just "Here's question #1" as soon as you connect to the call. They'll check your identity, they'll explain the test, they'll offer you a chance to ask questions, they'll explain you the rules. Connections will drop. Interruptions will happen. And a lot of people apply as families, so you need to test all adults separately. And there's always some overhead outside of the call itself. So "30-90 minutes" per person doesn't sound that far-fetched when you consider all of that.
Again, maybe I'm wrong but working in IT, I can tell you things rarely are as simple as they seem.