If you do get approved you shouldn’t count on it getting approved going forward. This is to prevent people from doing exactly what your wife seems to have done: sponsor spouse, spouse lands in Canada and then couple return to the PRs home country to continue living the life the person had before they got PR.
PRTD- Riyadh
- Thread starter RF786
- Start date
You are correct. Canadian feudal lords and slave owners (aka Orwellian Triple Hermetic Secret Worshippers) do not want PR to go home and lead normal, high quality life. They want PRs to run as rickshaws on the streets of Canada. Which disgusts me beyond words. But it doesn't change the RO: as you said, even if asker gets approved he shouldn't count on it moving forward.
You are being ridiculous. Nothing preventing this couple from living in the husband’s home country but there is no need for the spouse to get and retain PR of that is the case.
Why am l being "ridiculous" for having a strong opinion against RO? It's my right to have an opinion about the relatively newly enforced regulation and I shouldn't be attacked on the account of expressing it.
The rule isn’t new. Canada has never prevented people from returning to their home countries. If spouses want to sponsor a spouse to come and live in Canada it is for them to come and live in Canada and not to land and return to their home country. There is no need for them to have PR if they don’t have immediate plans on living in Canada. Counting time with a Canadian spouse while living abroad is a policy that allows even more flexibility when it comes to RO. The policy does not limit the Canadian from taking an opportunity outside Canada because they are worried that their spouse needs to meet the 730 days out of 5 years.
The rule isn't knew, but aggressive enforcement of it is. It was common for Canadian PRs to travel, stay for decades out of Canada and return without being grilled and reported at the border. Not any longer. Again, the rule is not new, but the aggressive way it's being enforced is something totally new and started during the last decade. It also coincided with large influx of immigrants from what used to be called "third world countries", and in the context of it I perceive it as manifestation of feudal/slave owner mentality ("now that we started to import "those" people, we need them to clean our toilets and run as rickshaws on the street, so it is time to aggressively enforce the RO, least these PRs go back home and live normal lives. We need them third world country people as slaves/rickshaws here, we can't allow them to lead comfortable , self sufficient lives, here or abroad!"). And that disgusts me.
Yet again it has to do with a Canadian (of various ethnic origins) choosing to live outside Canada with their spouse. They could be living in the US, Europe, etc. so this has nothing to do with all your claims. If someone isn’t planning on living in Canada they don’t need PR. As a Canadian one can sponsor a spouse if they eventually do want to live in Canada.
Let me break it down. Please refer to each line you disagree with and explain why (i.e. "#1 is not correct, because..." and etc.).
#1. The rule isn't knew, but aggressive enforcement of it is.
#2. It was common for Canadian PRs to travel, stay for decades out of Canada and return without being grilled and reported at the border.
#3. Not any longer.
#4. (also see #1): Again, the rule is not new, but the aggressive way it's being enforced is something totally new and started during the last decade.
#5. It (aggressive enforcement of RO - JL) also coincided with large influx of immigrants from what used to be called "third world countries".
The following are not undisputed facts, as those stated above, but my conclusions based on facts cited:
...in the context of above stated I perceive it (aggressive enforcement of RO) as manifestation of feudal/slave owner mentality ("now that we started to import "those" people, we need them to clean our toilets and run as rickshaws on the street, so it is time to aggressively enforce the RO, least these PRs go back home and live normal lives. We need them third world country people as slaves/rickshaws here, we can't allow them to lead comfortable , self sufficient lives, here or abroad!"). And that disgusts me.
You may draw different conclusions and believe that the motivation of government is something other than what I believe it is. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am entitled to mine.
There are so many inaccuracies. You can’t even stay outside Canada for decades and return unless you land in the US first which most are unwilling to do. I’m done
Why don't you pick a line and state what exactly is inaccurate, rather than make a general statement that is not even possible to make?
Anyone with visa waiver passport could enter both US and Canada in past, via air or land. Many PRs did, after staying out of Canada for many years without being reported at the border. It wasn't until relatively recently when PR card was required to fly into Canada (US citizens excluded). All the restrictions, as well as aggressive enforcement of RO, are product of the past decade or so (will add here that the whole process of creating barriers to travel started around 2002, following 911 and under pretext of "enhancing security and sealing the border along perimeter", as if international terrorists were more likely to use Canadian border to cross over - as opposed to Mexican border which has zero control, or were Canadian PRs who stayed out of Canada in India or EU for too long).
I guess it's easier to make false, generalized statement and say "I am done", than pick a line, make a valid argument and back up your own words.
Last edited:
Since September 22 it shows decision made, however I failed to get any update since then. I was told that it will sent for in person pick up.
I should be in compliance with Residency Obligation as my wife is Canadian and we live together in KSA, unless an officer would have a different interpretation.
