The simplest default position from an immigration point of view is that Citizenship ranks higher than PR which in turn ranks hire than any other non PR status be it employment/non employment. Each country has an approach towards time considered as qualifying for Citizenship. By default PR status as the only considered time for citizenship makes logical sense from a ranking perspective and its also a tool to control the inventory if need be. There is a political angle to this too - PRs and Citizens merit more consideration..in fact Charter rights in Canada have a bias towards them for entry/remaining in Canada. It sucks for those applying under the SCCA but Canada was an exception amongst peer countries in accepting any non PR time capped at 1 year towards the qualifying period. Several countries including the UK in contrast credit different times to different visa status so you need more time as a student (10 years) and less as a spouse (used to be 2 now 5) for time counting towards PR and thus by default citizenship. Its my opinion too that Parliament due to a weak RO obligation (2/5 years) wanted to prevent those PRs playing the RO roulette from applying for citizenship. Non PR time is not subject to the RO so getting rid of it is a useful tool to achieve this as also aided by the 183 days physical presence in each qualifying year requirement.
Help defeat the Conservatives for Bill C-24 (Federal Elections - October 19th)
- Thread starter taleodor
- Start date
This subject (C-24 and different parts of it) was discussed here to death in various other threads. So it may be a little of a waste of time to repeat all pro et contra here, as they are well known.Msafiri said:
There are few things I'd like to point out related to this topic though:
1. The vote on C-24 was made strictly by the party lines. And there is only one party (Conservatives), that brought up the bill, rejected all (each and every one) amendments to it and put it to law. All other parties opposed C-24.
2. There were at least 3 high scale petitions (that I've seen) against different parts of C-24, largest of them got more than 50k signatures. All of them were completely ignored by Conservatives. Conservatives also brought up technicalities in relation to that (i.e., that signatures under online petitions cannot be authenticated). Which, IMHO, makes the process undemocratic.
3. There is now a court challenge against parts of C-24. And I personally hate seeing my tax dollars used by Harper's regime to fight this challenge.
4. C-24 is just one of many other events, where Conservatives change the rules in the middle of immigration process of hundreds of thousands of people, showing zero level of humanity for these very people.
5. Conservatives constantly brag about reducing taxes. But look at how oppressive are government and legal fees imposed on immigrants these days. And those fees in most part don't even go to CIC, whose staff is being reduced constantly. Instead, those fees are used to compensate tax cuts for the rich. This is a real evidence of 2-tiered society btw.
6. Almost every immigration case (even the simplest ones) these days require you to contact your MP (read many other threads in this forum if you are not sure of what I'm talking about). This fact alone shows how badly Conservatives have failed on the Immigration. The system is just now working.
7. Irrespective of the points above, Conservatives try to make you think that there is a consensus in the Canadian society regarding C-24 and other immigration initiatives. Don't buy this. Lies after lies after lies. Yes, they have already spent 750 million of our tax dollars on partisan ads to brain wash Canadians, but I hope we are smart enough to not to believe them. Enough is enough.
keesio
VIP Member
- May 16, 2012
- 396
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- CPP-O
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 09-01-2013
- Doc's Request.
- 09-07-2013
- AOR Received.
- 30-01-2013
- File Transfer...
- 11-02-2013
- Med's Done....
- 02-01-2013
- Interview........
- waived
- Passport Req..
- 12-07-2013
- VISA ISSUED...
- 15-08-2013
- LANDED..........
- 14-10-2013
If you noticed, C-24 has hardly been mentioned by any of the opposition candidates. It is because it is low on the priority list. The reason why it is low on the priority list is because C-24 has broad support from supporters of all parties, not just Conservative. Notice how this differs from C-51, which has been discussed a lot (including the last debate) because there is much stronger opposition for it. The reason is because this one affects many more Canadians. C-51 would be in the cross-hairs of a non-Conservative party but not C-24.
Excellent points, I just would like to add that having dual nationality should not be a crime, apparently this bill says you are a criminal without charge if you have dual nationality, even a child born in Canada would always be on radar as long as he/ she has another association. This divide would divide the nation in long run, either we like it or not this will happen because of this element in the bill.CanadaJimmy said:Two things I didn't like about C-24:
1) No time before permanent residency is counted towards citizenship - this is incredibly unfair, since when on a work permit or study visa you are integrating and becoming part of Canadian life. Canadian culture and values become part of you during any time you stay in Canada, regardless if you are PR or not. The previous rule that every day before PR counted as half a day was fair, this however, is not.
2) Two-tier citizenship - if you are ever decided by the government that you have committed a terrorist act, which they might decide is being involved in a protest for example, or you might simply have been in the wrong place and the wrong time, you can have your citizenship stripped of you. While I think it's quite unlikely to really affect anyone who doesn't deserve it, it sets a precedent that citizenship is not forever, more like it is "Permenant Residency 2.0" and that you do not have the same rights as someone born here. Naturalised citizens won't feel as included in Canada and this could actually make what it is trying to prevent (radicalisation) a worse problem.
But anyway yes, we should do our best to get these guys out of office. Canada needs to attract top talent from around the world, and the current rollercoaster system of CIC and cost has meant we have lost some great people to other nations who don't want to wait and deal with this terrible system. There's a million other reasons to vote them out too of course, but I don't want to go off topic
The other thing about the bill is changing the law for those who laready landed and were about to have citizenship, no doubt Canadian government have all the right to change the law but those already landed based all thier planning based on what they were told at the time of application, they were informed that they will be eligible for Citizenship with 3 years of residence, I don't think is fair for them that this bill change everything in the middle of their journey towards citizenship, it looks like PR in the country are not considered as normal humans. Some parts of the C-24 are not bad but what is wrong and unfair is wrong and unfair.
screech339
VIP Member
- Apr 2, 2013
- 547
- Category........
- Visa Office......
- Vegreville
- Job Offer........
- Pre-Assessed..
- App. Filed.......
- 14-08-2012
- AOR Received.
- 20-11-2012
- Med's Done....
- 18-07-2012
- Interview........
- 17-06-2013
- LANDED..........
- 17-06-2013
Having dual nationality is not a crime. It is, in fact, a luxury, a lot of Canadians don't have.HHH2000 said:
But if you want to keep your Canadian citizenship, you either got two choices.
1. Live your life as a law abiding citizen and you got nothing to worry about.
2. You can officially renounce all other citizenships you have and you won't have to worry about losing Canadian citizenship, even if you intend to live a life of crime.
nscreech339 said:
I think logically I should agree to you, as your second point is valid, that once Canadian Citizen we should denounce our first Nationality and Canadian government have all the rights to bring this point. Emotionally it could be hard for someone but fair for Canadian government to bring such law.
But not all countries in this world allow you to denounce your first nationality and C-24 is not clear that even if one denounce its nationality one will not be considered dual citizen.
See and listen at harperman.ca
Sing along. Contribute.
For those who are a citizen, or will be in time: Vote. Vote smart (avoid vote splitting in ridings where a cooperative vote is needed to defeat the Conservative candidate for that riding).
Heave Steve is another tune worth singing (google it). Not quite as moving or fun or catchy as Harperman It's time for you to go!, but the essential message is the same: take action, at least vote.
A lot, lot, lot more is at stake than immigration and citizenship. Get out the vote. Throw the bums out.
Sing along. Contribute.
For those who are a citizen, or will be in time: Vote. Vote smart (avoid vote splitting in ridings where a cooperative vote is needed to defeat the Conservative candidate for that riding).
Heave Steve is another tune worth singing (google it). Not quite as moving or fun or catchy as Harperman It's time for you to go!, but the essential message is the same: take action, at least vote.
A lot, lot, lot more is at stake than immigration and citizenship. Get out the vote. Throw the bums out.
CBC and other media sources are reporting that (from CBC headline) "Justin Trudeau vows to repeal '2-tiered' citienship law."
Some versions of the report state that he said he will repeal the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (the SCCA), but my impression (without finding a verbatim account of what he purportedly said in Toronto and Mississauga today, or the press release itself) is that he was referring only to the specific provisions which would allow the government to revoke the citizenship of dual citizens based on acts committed after becoming a citizen.
Thus, I do not think this is at all about other parts of the SCCA . . . no promise, for example, to repeal or even modify the grant citizenship requirements.
Trudeau, to his credit, appears to be careful about the nature and scope of his promises, appearing so far to make promises he intends to keep. That said, if the promise is indeed broader than merely repealing the provisions for revoking citizenship for acts committed after becoming a citizen, it is difficult to see that actually happening, especially for example any repeal of the grant citizenship requirements.
Some versions of the report state that he said he will repeal the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (the SCCA), but my impression (without finding a verbatim account of what he purportedly said in Toronto and Mississauga today, or the press release itself) is that he was referring only to the specific provisions which would allow the government to revoke the citizenship of dual citizens based on acts committed after becoming a citizen.
Thus, I do not think this is at all about other parts of the SCCA . . . no promise, for example, to repeal or even modify the grant citizenship requirements.
Trudeau, to his credit, appears to be careful about the nature and scope of his promises, appearing so far to make promises he intends to keep. That said, if the promise is indeed broader than merely repealing the provisions for revoking citizenship for acts committed after becoming a citizen, it is difficult to see that actually happening, especially for example any repeal of the grant citizenship requirements.
Heaven forfend any such racist motivations again become ascendant in Canada's laws regarding the grant of citizenship!SergiiK said:
And while the poster does not specifically mention any ethnic groups, we all know which groups are meant by the code word "radicalized." One ought to be ashamed!
Many immigrants came to Canada in part, if not large part, for the great country it is. Many care about the direction things go in Canada.
I am among those who care.
To some the Harperman song may come across as Harper bashing. But when the accused did the crime, the verdict of guilty is due. Lines in the song like "who put the rogue in prorogue?" ask questions which highlight just a small slice of the abusive manner in which Harper has leveraged his power inconsistent with the democratic process.
As I noted before, what is at stake goes well beyond immigration and citizenship. Just in the manner of governing and the demise of transparency alone (the extent to which CIC alone, in the last nine years, has taken its guidelines and policies and practices behind the curtain is utterly staggering), never mind the incompetence, Canada is in desperate need of a new government.
A huge part of becoming a citizen, not just in formal status but in actually living and being a citizen in Canada, is learning about and then participating in the Canadian political process. Immigrants and new citizens and all citizens should get informed and vote for who will lead this great country forward in a difficult world. Harper is not the one.
I am among those who care.
To some the Harperman song may come across as Harper bashing. But when the accused did the crime, the verdict of guilty is due. Lines in the song like "who put the rogue in prorogue?" ask questions which highlight just a small slice of the abusive manner in which Harper has leveraged his power inconsistent with the democratic process.
As I noted before, what is at stake goes well beyond immigration and citizenship. Just in the manner of governing and the demise of transparency alone (the extent to which CIC alone, in the last nine years, has taken its guidelines and policies and practices behind the curtain is utterly staggering), never mind the incompetence, Canada is in desperate need of a new government.
A huge part of becoming a citizen, not just in formal status but in actually living and being a citizen in Canada, is learning about and then participating in the Canadian political process. Immigrants and new citizens and all citizens should get informed and vote for who will lead this great country forward in a difficult world. Harper is not the one.