PR card recalled and seized?

[abff08f4813c]

That will not make sense at all. People can still enter back into Canada using CoPR, passport and driving license.

So we already know that this wasn't the case regardless... but .. what could have been the line of thinking is this:

Folks caught in (or thought to be in by authorities) that category (namely the "essentially moved to Canada to obtain citizenship while still working in the US" one) would have their PR card recalled and seized by CBSA, and then informed to file for a replacement PR card.

Then, when IRCC receives such application, they then scrutinize it more closely, with the aim of trying to deny as many of these as they can (e.g. finding that the physical presence wasn't sufficient etc). Sort of like how CBSA will sometimes decline to file a Section 44 report when you cross the land border, but request that you inform IRCC, who then moves to revoke your PR when you inform them...

We know now that this isn't and didn't happen, but that's what some folks were wondering about earlier.

My opinion on this has always been this : When it comes to Canada, one should not be more canadian than canadian citizens themself. If Canadian citizens for many decades have been working in USA legally and making almost daily day trip, it should not be beholden on immigrants to not do that, so long they are in clear of law. Follow the law but make use of all the opportunities that come your way.

Agreed. All citizens equal under the law - that's an ideal that I can get behind.

 

[GandiBaat]

Folks caught in (or thought to be in by authorities) that category (namely the "essentially moved to Canada to obtain citizenship while still working in the US" one) would have their PR card recalled and seized by CBSA, and then informed to file for a replacement PR card.

Then, when IRCC receives such application, they then scrutinize it more closely, with the aim of trying to deny as many of these as they can (e.g. finding that the physical presence wasn't sufficient etc). Sort of like how CBSA will sometimes decline to file a Section 44 report when you cross the land border, but request that you inform IRCC, who then moves to revoke your PR when you inform them...

Errr... few things.

1. PR Card =/= PR. Meaning act of cancelling PR Card does not cancels one's PR and not to mention, it does not completely disallow one from entering Canada. It only limits their options. Namely, commercial travel.

2. Actually, even in the case one's physical presence criteria does not meet, one can not be denied an entry back into Canada at border. Because the removal of PR can only happen via a formal hearing. Using your CoPR you can still enter Canada.

 

[abff08f4813c]

Errr... few things.

1. PR Card =/= PR. Meaning act of cancelling PR Card does not cancels one's PR and not to mention, it does not completely disallow one from entering Canada.

Agreed, that's why there's the suggestion from CBSA to inform IRCC (by filing the application with IRCC to replace the seized PR card). The fear here is that, while the PR might otherwise have been able to keep PR indefinitely just by flying out from and back into the US internationally, and then using passport + CoPR + driver's license to cross back and forth between US/Canada, filing the application for a replacement PR card triggers an additional process that leads to the actual PR being cancelled (and not just the card).

It only limits their options. Namely, commercial travel.

Not even all. Taxis are commercial in a sense but they're allowed. And while a bus might technically not be allowed, in practice odds seem good that one could use this as well.

The problem here is that for some, this might not be acceptable. They might absolutely need the ability to (work in the US and also) fly in and out of Canada, say to hurriedly visit sick relatives in Europe or something.

2. Actually, even in the case one's physical presence criteria does not meet, one can not be denied an entry back into Canada at border.

Agreed. Even from the very beginning of this thread (before things were clarified), it was apparent that no one who had a seized PR card was denied entry at the border. All were allowed back in.

Because the removal of PR can only happen via a formal hearing.

Well... define "formal" and also define "hearing" - I've heard that one can lose PR if filing for a PR card, or a PRTD, and the determination is against you. (Though you can delay it by appealing, but if the case is weak enough and H&C considerations are also weak or not applicable, then eventually one will exhaust all appeals and lose PR.)

Using your CoPR you can still enter Canada.

So this is why that original theory never made much sense to me. If the direction was to be tougher on this category of folks, they could analyze the reasons right then and there at the border, and issue a Section 44 report to start the formal process to strip PR. No need to request the applicant to file the PR card application (and risk having the applicant fall thru the cracks if the applicant declined to do so, as you point out not everyone would have needed to do this).

 

[armoured]

That will not make sense at all. People can still enter back into Canada using CoPR, passport and driving license.

They would/could eventually lose PR status in Canada.

My opinion on this has always been this : When it comes to Canada, one should not be more canadian than canadian citizens themself. If Canadian citizens for many decades have been working in USA legally and making almost daily day trip, it should not be beholden on immigrants to not do that, so long they are in clear of law. Follow the law but make use of all the opportunities that come your way.

Canada gave you PR based on their own calculation of benefits. If you are not earning enough, you are not doing anyone any favour. Infact quite the opposite. Earn money, as much as possible, as fast as possible. Pay your share of taxes (again, go back to the point of remaining in clear of law) and Canada should have ZERO issues with you.

My impression is that you're not talking about the same thing (although I haven't followed the thread in 100% detail, so if I've misconstrued your point, mea culpa).

Overall I think the point being made above is that the combination of several immigration aspects in Canada has resulted in / can lead to a lot of immigration that is specifically targetting acquiring Canadian citizenship in order to acquire the passport and leave Canada - basically permanently. Those aspects are (in combination) lack of requirement to reside in Canada while citizenship is being processed*, relatively short residency requirement for citizenship (compared to most other countries), inclusion of time in Canada before becoming a PR (arguable this), and some of the education mills/temporary foreign worker programs (also arguable).

Of course, it's a fact of life for Canada that some 'leakage' of Canadians citizens and PRs to the USA and other countries is unavoidable in the modern world. Reasonable people can disagree on whether it's in Canada's interests to grant them citizenship more quickly (which does provide better/faster access to US immigration).

Your social contract with Canada as an immigrant is to follow law, value Canadian values (though, those are typically not very clear and often redefined by politicians to whatever is expedient), contribute to prosperity of Canada in process of forwarding your own prosperity, when possible support your local community and if a war break out, be ready to fight for Canada if you are a citizen.

Realistically, once a citizen, none of the last three are realistic requirements.

So again: should not be controversial that some (many? idk) will feel that granting citizenship too quickly can result in part of the social contract is not being honoured - if, at least, it encourages immigration to Canada / acquisition of citizenship in order to leave Canada and not to remain.

[I think I'm pretty liberal on immigration and pro-immigration - I favour both of them. But I'm concerned about this aspect, because I see it appears to be happening a lot, judging by - for example - the number of citizenship apps on this forum from those no longer living in Canada.]

 

[armoured]

Well... define "formal" and also define "hearing" - I've heard that one can lose PR if filing for a PR card, or a PRTD, and the determination is against you. (Though you can delay it by appealing, but if the case is weak enough and H&C considerations are also weak or not applicable, then eventually one will exhaust all appeals and lose PR.)

I don't think this requires further definition: an appeal is a hearing.

 

[abff08f4813c]

I don't think this requires further definition: an appeal is a hearing.

Then, strictly speaking, the original comment is wrong, no? As in, one can lose PR without having one, for example by filing for a PRTD under H&C and having it denied, and choosing not to file an appeal over the denial. (Albeit that it would be that one's choice to choose not to file an appeal, while having the right to file it.) PR would then be automatically lost once the deadline to file an appeal passes.

(Or perhaps it's lost right away, and that filing an appeal temporarily reverses that until a decision is made? Sometimes I get lost in some of these finer details)

edit: On further thinking, this is just semantics. I think we can all agree that practically speaking, one can't lose PR without first being given the chance to appeal, and call it a day.

 

[armoured]

Then, strictly speaking, the original comment is wrong, no? As in, one can lose PR without having one, for example by filing for a PRTD under H&C and having it denied, and choosing not to file an appeal over the denial. (Albeit that it would be that one's choice to choose not to file an appeal, while having the right to file it.) PR would then be automatically lost once the deadline to file an appeal passes.

(Or perhaps it's lost right away, and that filing an appeal temporarily reverses that until a decision is made? Sometimes I get lost in some of these finer details)

edit: On further thinking, this is just semantics. I think we can all agree that practically speaking, one can't lose PR without first being given the chance to appeal, and call it a day.

I believe the original formulation is the right to a hearing, not that there must be a hearing, and one can waive a right.

In other words: you got there with the correct conclusion eventually.