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

[crimesinister]

Crimesinister,

I try to stay away from the entire discussion as I don't understand all the aspects of the concern and don't want to get into all the details right now (e.g. whether it applies to PR in the process only or as well to citizens after, etc.). However, there is one thing that really confuses me and maybe you have some insights:

Everything is hung up on this "intent to reside" statement. How can we discuss this topic when there are not even clear indicators to measure my intent? First of all, my intent is an assessment as of the time I sign the application and/or take the oath. I can't read the glass bowl what the future might bring. How do they (CIC) wanna take future developments as an basis to assess whether my earlier statement was true - that is impossible? Secondly, even if they consider to take anyone's absence from Canada as an indicator, this still wouldn't give any ground to question my intention: I can live 5 years somewhere else, this doesn't mean that my intention is no longer to live in Canada (I just not live here currently but still intend to reside here)?

I just think it would be rather difficult for CIC to prove that my intention changed (e.g. I intend to have kids, it didn't work out so far, maybe it never will, but my intention never changed, just the fact that I currently don't have any can't be the basis to assume my intention is different (just an example - not for real).

The fact that this law is causing so much confusion in itself is a good indicator that it must be voided for vagueness.

 

[nb8285]

Intension to reside is definitely provable in court.

The provision's target are those people who apply for citizenship and immediately fly off to another country to find work or to continue in their job or business (I.e. They want a "passport of convenience"). The provision is meant to either not grant citizenship to such people or to revoke it from them even if they meet the physical presence and other tests that one needs to pass in order to apply for citizenship.

Oversees job, business and spouse/children are pretty strong evidences that one doesn't have intension to reside in Canada and can be grounds for denial or revocation.

Anyone else need not worry about this provision too much.

 

[screech339]

Intension to reside is definitely provable in court.

The provision's target are those people who apply for citizenship and immediately fly off to another country to find work or to continue in their job or business (I.e. They want a "passport of convenience"). The provision is meant to either not grant citizenship to such people or to revoke it from them even if they meet the physical presence and other tests that one needs to pass in order to apply for citizenship.

Anyone else need not worry about this provision too much.

If you bought a one way ticket / accepted job offer before the oath then that is provable. Since it applies during process. However if you bought a one way ticket or accepted a job offer after you got citizenship, you can't prove it in court that you had no intention. It is not your fault if a job offer came after you got citizenship. An opportunity came and you took it. It's that simple.

So I guess that is the price of applying for citizenship. Turn down every oversea jobs until you get your citizenship. By turning down overseas jobs, you are proving your intent in staying in Canada until oath.

If you been offer a job outside Canada that is hard to refuse, you do have a choice. Abandon citizenship and take the job or turn it down and wait until you get citizenship. You can't have it both ways. You can't apply for citizenship on way to airport.

 

[torontosm]

I have no legal background beyond successfully raising a Charter challenge against a parking ticket which was issued in error.

I just figured that since you were raising certain people's hopes by repeatedly asserting that the government was acting in an illegal manner, you would have some sort of knowledge of, or training on, the subject. I guess it just goes to show that anyone can be an expert on the Internet.

 

[YorkFactory]

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.

The intent to reside does not apply to anyone who is a Canadian citizen at the time. I have no idea why you and your lawyers think the Charter precludes Parliament from passing legislation that imposes the intent-to-reside requirement on non-Canadians, who do not have a Charter right to freedom of movement.