Nine Things You Need to Know About the Changes to Canadian Citizenship

[crimesinister]

5. What about new or naturalized Canadians who end up living outside Canada?

The ‘intent to reside in Canada’ provisions would make new Canadians vulnerable to citizenship stripping if, after they become citizens, they move abroad for some reason. From now on, new Canadians will have to promise that they intend to reside in Canada as a pre-condition of obtaining citizenship, and failing to reside in Canada after citizenship is granted could mean that the government will consider you to have lied in your application for citizenship. Misrepresentation is a ground for nullifying citizenship. So a new Canadian who moves to another country to be with a dying relative, to live with their children, or to pursue a business, academic, or other employment opportunity could be at risk.

Read more

 

[paw339]

crimesinister
I'm sorry the new citizenship rule aren't exactly to your liking. Perhaps you should set up your own country where you could write the rules exactly as you wish or would you rather be the the supreme ruler of Canada and dissolve parliament whenever they threaten to do anything you don't like.

 

[MUFC]

5. What about new or naturalized Canadians who end up living outside Canada?

The ‘intent to reside in Canada' provisions would make new Canadians vulnerable to citizenship stripping if, after they become citizens, they move abroad for some reason. From now on, new Canadians will have to promise that they intend to reside in Canada as a pre-condition of obtaining citizenship, and failing to reside in Canada after citizenship is granted could mean that the government will consider you to have lied in your application for citizenship. Misrepresentation is a ground for nullifying citizenship. So a new Canadian who moves to another country to be with a dying relative, to live with their children, or to pursue a business, academic, or other employment opportunity could be at risk.

Read more

??? ??? ???

 

[crimesinister]

crimesinister
I'm sorry the new citizenship rule aren't exactly to your liking. Perhaps you should set up your own country where you could write the rules exactly as you wish or would you rather be the the supreme ruler of Canada and dissolve parliament whenever they threaten to do anything you don't like.

Notice of Disengagement
1. I reject the false dichotomy that you either support Bill C-24 or you sympathize with criminals, traitors and terrorists. This is the exact same repugnant false dichotomy put forward by Bush, and recently, has become the central theme of Conservative Party talking points.
2. I will no longer respond to individuals who personally attack me beyond this notice of disengagement. Ad hominem attacks are made by individuals who are unable to construct a proper counter argument as a desperate attempt to cling on to their position. I will not engage people who are playing the player and not the puck. If you want to debate me on the merits of my arguments, feel free to do so. If you attack me because you disagree with me, please understand that you're merely howling at the moon.

 

[MUFC]

1. I reject the false dichotomy that you either support Bill C-24 or you sympathize with criminals, traitors and terrorists. This is the exact same repugnant false dichotomy put forward by Bush, and recently, has become the central theme of Conservative Party talking points.

So they are copying Bush ...
This is shocking.

 

[torontosm]

5. What about new or naturalized Canadians who end up living outside Canada?

The ‘intent to reside in Canada' provisions would make new Canadians vulnerable to citizenship stripping if, after they become citizens, they move abroad for some reason. From now on, new Canadians will have to promise that they intend to reside in Canada as a pre-condition of obtaining citizenship, and failing to reside in Canada after citizenship is granted could mean that the government will consider you to have lied in your application for citizenship. Misrepresentation is a ground for nullifying citizenship. So a new Canadian who moves to another country to be with a dying relative, to live with their children, or to pursue a business, academic, or other employment opportunity could be at risk.

Read more

Crimesinister, instead of taking things out of context, or posting hypothetical cases of what "could" happen, why don't you also mention what the government has repeatedly stated on this point? Specifically, the Minister and several other prominent figures have repeatedly asserted that the intent to reside clause applies ONLY between the application date and the oath, and that ALL citizens are free to leave Canada once they become citizens. This is protected by the Charter and the new law does not contravene it.

You are free to pursue whatever cases you want, but at least present the whole story instead of trying to gain support for your cause by spreading misinformation

 

[crimesinister]

Crimesinister, instead of taking things out of context, or posting hypothetical cases of what "could" happen, why don't you also mention what the government has repeatedly stated on this point? Specifically, the Minister and several other prominent figures have repeatedly asserted that the intent to reside clause applies ONLY between the application date and the oath, and that ALL citizens are free to leave Canada once they become citizens. This is protected by the Charter and the new law does not contravene it.

You are free to pursue whatever cases you want, but at least present the whole story instead of trying to gain support for your cause by spreading misinformation

Minister Alexander repeatedly said that the "intent to reside" only applies before the oath. But the wording of the requirement in the application begins with "if granted citizenship". If Minister Alexander has been less than honest about one provision, why would anyone in their right mind believe anything else he has said?

 

[MUFC]

Minister Alexander repeatedly said that the "intent to reside" only applies before the oath. But the wording of the requirement in the application begins with "if granted citizenship". If Minister Alexander has been less than honest about one provision, why would anyone in their right mind believe anything else he has said?

So basically this is very shocking to me.

You are the first person who is trying to open this serious problem.

 

[torontosm]

Minister Alexander repeatedly said that the "intent to reside" only applies before the oath. But the wording of the requirement in the application begins with "if granted citizenship". If Minister Alexander has been less than honest about one provision, why would anyone in their right mind believe anything else he has said?

Again with the selective information. What about this, straight off the CIC website?

"Intent to reside
You must declare your intent to reside during the citizenship application process.

To become a citizen, you must indicate your intention to:

live in Canada,
work outside Canada as a Crown servant, or
live abroad with certain family members who are Crown servants.
Once you become a Canadian citizen, you have the right to enter, remain in, or leave Canada, one of the basic rights of citizenship."

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/become-eligibility.asp#reside

 

[crimesinister]

Again with the selective information. What about this, straight off the CIC website?

"Intent to reside
You must declare your intent to reside during the citizenship application process.

To become a citizen, you must indicate your intention to:

live in Canada,
work outside Canada as a Crown servant, or
live abroad with certain family members who are Crown servants.
Once you become a Canadian citizen, you have the right to enter, remain in, or leave Canada, one of the basic rights of citizenship."

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/become-eligibility.asp#reside

CIC website isn't legally binding. The form you fill and the statute are.

I.e., CIC can state on their website and Min Alexander can say in interviews that the intent to reside does not apply once you become a citizen, but that's not what the law says. When the challenge of this SCCA provision comes up before court, CIC and Min Alexander won't be able to use their interpretations to prove that the legislation is constitutional, for the simple reason that the law, the way its written, can be easily interpreted differently by a future government. That's why my lawyers and I are confident that section 3. (1) of the SCCA will be struck down.

 

[MUFC]

CIC website isn't legally binding. The form you fill and the statute are.

I'm scared. ??? ??? ???
They will revoke the citizenship from everybody! :'( :'( :'(

 

[crimesinister]

I'm scared. ??? ??? ???
They will revoke the citizenship from everybody! :'( :'( :'(

I know you're being sarcastic, but hey, what the heck, I'll respond anyway.

It's not a question of whether they will or won't. It's a question of whether they can, and that's what's unconstitutional.

 

[MUFC]

I know you're being sarcastic, but hey, what the heck, I'll respond anyway.

It's not a question of whether they will or won't. It's a question of whether they can, and that's what's unconstitutional.

Can you show where in the law is written that they will revoke your citizenship because of the intend BS.

 

[torontosm]

CIC website isn't legally binding. The form you fill and the statute are.

I.e., CIC can state on their website and Min Alexander can say in interviews that the intent to reside does not apply once you become a citizen, but that's not what the law says. When the challenge of this SCCA provision comes up before court, CIC and Min Alexander won't be able to use their interpretations to prove that the legislation is constitutional, for the simple reason that the law, the way its written, can be easily interpreted differently by a future government. That's why my lawyers and I are confident that section 3. (1) of the SCCA will be struck down.

I would think that the Charter ranks a little bit higher than a common citizenship application and I can't see any government arguing otherwise. But given your legal background, I'm sure you already knew this.

 

[MUFC]

I would think that the Charter ranks a little bit higher than a common citizenship application and I can't see any government arguing otherwise. But given your legal background, I'm sure you already knew this.

The idea is that fake paranoia to be spread around. Everyday one and the same BS about that intend to reside clause.