The "intent to reside " clarification by Chris Alex

[MUFC]

The Bill clearly states something, but the Minister clearly means something completely different. This is really funny.

 

[screech339]

There is a difference between obligation of residency in Canada as PR comparing to intent to reside in Canada. How can you intend to reside in Canada if you are obligated to remain in Canada 2 years out of 5. The verb "intent" implied voluntarily action out of your own free will. As much as Chris A. clarified the "intent to reside in Canada", it's purpose is to remind those who apply for Canadian citizenship that it is frown upon to intent to live elsewhere once they achieved Canadian citizenship. In other words, don't be a Canadian of Convenience.

Even though it is not "enforceable" to stop Canadians from leaving Canada for good, it is mostly symbolic gesture and a reminder that Canada is your country.

 

[sazamizi]

It’s crystal clear what the minister is saying about the Intent to Reside in Canada and it makes sense. I try to trust it. But, believe me or not, what he says is different with what has been mentioned about the Intent in the law which is scary. I hope they don’t change their words very soon!
Good luck,
S.

 

[Travel Dream]

It's crystal clear what the minister is saying about the Intent to Reside in Canada and it makes sense. I try to trust it. But, believe me or not, what he says is different with what has been mentioned about the Intent in the law which is scary. I hope they don't change their words very soon!
Good luck,
S.

Exactly . the minster speech is very clear but why on earth they want to keep the words in the bill ambiguous. They can clarify it or change some words unless there are some hidden purposes for these words.

 

[006007]

But how about if they delay your citizenship application for a long time? 3 years, 4 years or more?

Exactly . the minster speech is very clear but why on earth they want to keep the words in the bill ambiguous. They can clarify it or change some words unless there are some hidden purposes for these words.

 

[labeamer]

Even though it is not "enforceable" to stop Canadians from leaving Canada for good, it is mostly symbolic gesture and a reminder that Canada is your country.

i disagree with your assertion. There is no such thing called symbolic or unenforceable clause in a law. If it's not enforceable, do not mention it altogether. And, if it's symbolic, state it in the law clearly saying it is symbolic. They (the Tories) had a very bad sinister intention when they included this clause in their so called 'strengthening citizenship act'... whatever!

Anyhow, what's written in the bill ("intend to continue to reside in canada once granted citizenship") is totally different than what the minister is saying. Plus, it doesn't matter what he says; he's a politician and he didn't even draft the bill. What matters most is what's written in the bill (now an act/law). Their real intention is to strip citizenship and abolish the people they do not approve of.... with the 'misrepresentation' or 'fraud' card. Moreover, they gave the minister a discretionary power to strip citizenship without any judicial recourse, and they do not even have to go to court anymore. Plus, there is already a law to revoke citizenship obtained by misrepresentation or fraudulently. Voila!!!

So, what they intend to do is, if a naturalized person is "undesirable", they will look for any excuse to abolish you (say, any intention you might have had before you were granted a canadian citizenship). For example, even if you applied for an overseas job (or responded to an overseas job ad), they can say you didn't have an "intention" to reside in canada. Then they will send u a letter saying you lied in your citizenship application, your citizenship will be revoked for misrepresentation and u may respond within 30 days. Of course if you are overseas or ill in a hospital or you didn't even get the letter, there you go, you're no longer a canadian citizen without any court proceedings.... all of a sudden you became stateless, especially if your birth country didn't recognize dual citizenship.

Anyhow, it's naive to say that a clause in a law/act is symbolic. There is no such symbolic or irrelevant or unenforceable clause in such a major law.

 

[screech339]

We all know that the Queen is head of Canada and yet has no control over how we do our business. So the Queen is symbolic in nature even though the law says she is our queen.

Britain has the same wording as well. They don't go around revoking british citizenship because they left Britain?

I still think it is unenforceable and symbolic.

Screech339

 

[labeamer]

Yea I heard ppl say Britain has also the intent to reside clause. But I have not seen the text (in their Act) yet; I wish someone posted the text here. But what we now have here in our case is very scary ("intend to continue to reside in canada once granted citizenship") and, I believe, it's enforceable.

By the way, I'm not here to argue (not at all!), I'm just sayin', yes Britain goes around and revokes citizenship (of course for a variety of reasons) and Britain also makes ppl stateless.

cheers.


Edit: ohh yea, I agree, the Queen is symbolic. And it's said so in the law. Indeed, she is head of state, not head of government, and she has no business in our business. The prime minister is the head of government.

 

[screech339]

labeamer, Here is the act you been asking for. I put in the BOLD myself to show you that there is "Intention" in their act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/61

British Nationality Act 1981

6 Acquisition by naturalisation.
(1)If, on an application for naturalisation as a British citizen made by a person of full age and capacity, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant fulfils the requirements of Schedule 1 for naturalisation as such a citizen under this subsection, he may, if he thinks fit, grant to him a certificate of naturalisation as such a citizen.
(2)If, on an application for naturalisation as a British citizen made by a person of full age and capacity who on the date of the application is married to a British citizen, or is the civil partner of a British citizen the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant fulfils the requirements of Schedule 1 for naturalisation as such a citizen under this subsection, he may, if he thinks fit, grant to him a certificate of naturalisation as such a citizen.

18 Acquisition by naturalisation.
(1)If, on an application for naturalisation as a British overseas territories citizen made by a person of full age and capacity, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant fulfils the requirements of Schedule 1 for naturalisation as such a citizen under this subsection, he may, if he thinks fit, grant to him a certificate of naturalisation as such a citizen.
(2)If, on an application for naturalisation as a British overseas territories citizen made by a person of full age and capacity who on the date of the application is married to such a citizen, or is the civil partner of such a citizen the Secretary of State is satisfied that the applicant fulfils the requirements of Schedule 1 for naturalisation as such a citizen under this subsection, he may, if he thinks fit, grant to him a certificate of naturalisation as such a citizen.
(3)Every application under this section shall specify the British overseas territory which is to be treated as the relevant territory for the purposes of that application; and, in relation to any such application, references in Schedule 1 to the relevant territory shall be construed accordingly.

SCHEDULE 1
REQUIREMENTS FOR NATURALISATION
C82Sch. 1 modified (7.11.2002, partly retrospective) by Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41), s. 11
Naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6(1)
1(1)Subject to paragraph 2, the requirements for naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6(1) are, in the case of any person who applies for it—
(a)the requirements specified in sub-paragraph (2) of this paragraph, or the alternative requirement specified in sub-paragraph (3) of this paragraph; and
(b)that he is of good character; and
(c)that he has a sufficient knowledge of the English, Welsh or Scottish Gaelic language; and
(ca)that he has sufficient knowledge about life in the United Kingdom; and
(d)that either—
(i)his intentions are such that, in the event of a certificate of naturalisation as a British citizen being granted to him, his home or (if he has more than one) his principal home will be in the United Kingdom; or
(ii)he intends, in the event of such a certificate being granted to him, to enter into, or continue in, Crown service under the government of the United Kingdom, or service under an international organisation of which the United Kingdom or Her Majesty's government therein is a member, or service in the employment of a company or association established in the United Kingdom.
(2)The requirements referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) of this paragraph are—
(a)that the applicant was in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the period of five years ending with the date of the application, and that the number of days on which he was absent from the United Kingdom in that period does not exceed 450; and
(b)that the number of days on which he was absent from the United Kingdom in the period of twelve months so ending does not exceed 90; and
(c)that he was not at any time in the period of twelve months so ending subject under the immigration laws to any restriction on the period for which he might remain in the United Kingdom; and
(d)that he was not at any time in the period of five years so ending in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws.
(3)The alternative requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) of this paragraph is that on the date of the application he is serving outside the United Kingdom in Crown service under the government of the United Kingdom.

 

[screech339]

Yea I heard ppl say Britain has also the intent to reside clause. But I have not seen the text (in their Act) yet; I wish someone posted the text here. But what we now have here in our case is very scary ("intend to continue to reside in canada once granted citizenship") and, I believe, it's enforceable.

By the way, I'm not here to argue (not at all!), I'm just sayin', yes Britain goes around and revokes citizenship (of course for a variety of reasons) and Britain also makes ppl stateless.

cheers.


Edit: ohh yea, I agree, the Queen is symbolic. And it's said so in the law. Indeed, she is head of state, not head of government, and she has no business in our business. The prime minister is the head of government.

Thanks for correcting me on the head of government but I didn't want to go into specifics of my error but I was only trying to make point or rebuttal in your statement that there is no such thing as "symbolic or unenforceable clause in a major law".

Yes Britain does strip citizenship but they are doing it through other means like fraud or terrorism and such. Not because a Briton has left the country and settle elsewhere. One other thing you are forgetting also, Britain is a signatory to UN Hague convention of reducing statelessness. So Britain cannot strip any of their citizens of citizenship if they become stateless as a result. They can strip citizenship if the person has dual citizenship. No difference from our law. We can only strip citizenship from those that have DUAL citizenships since Canada is also a signatory of Hague Convention to Reducing Statelessness, thus respecting the Hague Law.

BTW: Did you know that United States can strip American citizenship and make that person stateless? US is not a signatory to the Hague Convention of Statelessness. One American can become stateless inside US, if the person voluntarily renounce American citizenship. Not that any American would want to do that but legally they can.

Screech339

 

[ottawaResident]

... all of a sudden you became stateless, especially if your birth country didn't recognize dual citizenship.

While I understand your concern and trust me I'm paranoid as well, because you never know what the future holds for you...I won't have the ability to keep dual citizenship as India doesn't allow for it. But Canada is also signatory to some UN resolution on avoiding any of its citizens from becoming stateless. Even during Bill C-24 reading they made sure to bring up the fact that Canada will uphold the commitment to prevent any of their citizens from becoming stateless.

 

[canadp]

When you moved here in Canada in expectation of a good life, your responsibility comes along with the benefit to give back Canada in return even if you leave Canada after becoming Citizen. The same way your responsibility does not remove for your own home country.

Keep everything in balance. Keep out our mind sets to just get benefits out of something and return in nothing.

good luck to every one who becomes citizen of this country.

That's what I believe in

canadp

 

[BLT]

One of the reason we choose Canada is because it has many good values, and one of those is FREEDOM. Now how can there be a freedom if you threaten to lock the door if I ever get out from the house?
Most of the new laws are good, but to set where future citizen must live, is against Canada's own value. Now the minister has set an impossible law, and he is trying to talk it down in youtube. Law is stronger than talk, he better talk tough but set a reasonable law. IMO, those involved in terrorism especially against Canada must be given death penalty, not only revoking their citizenship. Those people are not even the citizen of planet Earth. Those who fight against Canada, or involved in spying, must be punished more severe than just revoking their citizenship as the other country that benefits from their spying activities will give them shelter. We must keep them here and make sure they rot in jail. But for those normal people like you and I, that if being granted citizenship now, then 10 years later being offered an overseas job with better payment for example, and accept the job to make some life saving or simply to make our family happier, are considered against the law and being revoked. This is insane, no?.