labeamer said:
What if the 'intent to reside' requirement is a tool to revoke the citizenship of a naturalized individual for 'misrepresentation?' Suppose . . .
Question:
"What if the 'intent to reside' requirement is a tool to revoke the citizenship of a naturalized individual for 'misrepresentation?'"
This is in the range of an
arguable interpretation and application of the
intent-requirement. It is a
red herring. The law does not work that way. Just because there is what appears to be a logical argument supporting a particular interpretation or application does not make that interpretation or application feasible. Logical possibility does not equal a real possibility.
Again, inferences about a person's "intent" are not at all unusual in the law.
I could offer a full-blown analysis explaining the underlying evidentiary elements involved, but it would be lengthy, complicated, and more jurisprudence than almost anyone other than a lawyer can stomach let alone want to read. The issue does not warrant that much attention. It really is a total
red herring.
This is not to deny that for those who do indeed engage in fraudulently misrepresenting the facts in the course of a citizenship application, including those facts relevant to assessing an applicant's intent to continue to reside in Canada upon becoming a citizen, there is indeed a palatable apprehension the government might someday discover the fraud and proceed to revoke citizenship. The best case scenario for those who commit fraud in the process of applying for citizenship is that they spend the rest of their life looking over their shoulder, harbouring at least some fear that someone close to them might turn on them and turn them in, and in doing so has the evidence necessary for the government to revoke their citizenship.
And make no mistake, the new citizen who leaves Canada within a few weeks, let alone days after becoming a citizen, and takes up a life somewhere abroad which obviously was in large part arranged before taking the oath,
DUH! DUH! DUH! . . . such as living in a residence which was leased or purchased
before taking the oath, taking a job which was applied for, let alone accepted,
before taking the oath, going to a place the rest of his family was already settled in, . . . and so on . . . yes, such a new citizen will be at risk for having his citizenship revoked, and the best case scenario is looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life (maybe the former boss in Canada finds out about the job offer preceding the oath and turns to the CIC tip line in pursuit of vengeance, or as he might think it is, justice).
While there is always some risk the innocent may be swept up in efforts to enforce these kinds of requirements, this really is not one of those situations. If anything, as alluded to by
neutral, many more cases of actual misrepresentation of intent in conjunction with misrepresentation of concrete facts (such as omitting disclosure of employment or business interests abroad) are likely to occur than will ever be subject to revocation proceedings. Once the oath is taken, the intent element itself is just history (but the door is not so closed for an applicant who has made misrepresentation of concrete facts, such as in regards to employment, business interests, property interests, and so on).
That is, a large percentage of those who do deliberately scheme to obtain a Canadian passport with a plan to then soon leave Canada, will continue to get away with it. Mostly these new requirements (including the 4/6 rule, the 4X183/year rule, tax compliance rule, and the
intent-requirement) are designed to make it much more difficult to perpetrate such schemes for obtaining the Canadian passport, as this government describes it, as a
passport of convenience or
citizenship of convenience. These requirements will not eliminate
taking-the-oath-on-the-way-to-the-airport but should dramatically reduce the numbers doing so (according to the Tories anyway . . . I am not so sure there are that many who have been doing this, even though more than a few with this agenda appear to pop up in forums like this) and should in particular dramatically reduce the number who
apply-on-the-way-to-the-airport.
In any event, again, the idea that just leaving Canada some time later, after becoming a citizen, might potentially lead to the government revoking citizenship is a total
red herring . . . but to be clear, those who want to parse this down to whether the departure is "too soon" after taking the oath, there is no confusion about what that is rooted in and it is not about the alleged prospect of the government going after the citizenship of ordinary naturalized citizens who, some time after taking the oath, decide to pursue an opportunity abroad. Which is to say, while the odds are in favour of getting away with it, sure there is some risk for the new citizen who leaves Canada so soon that it implies he intended to leave Canada before he took the oath. For obvious reasons.
