The "intent to reside " clarification by Chris Alex

[May2014]

Hello everyone .. Check out this ... Clarification of intent to reside by Chris Alex ..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk

 

[ilovemma]

Hello everyone .. Check out this ... Clarification of intent to reside by Chris Alex ..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk

Good job, buddy....This question was asked thousand times in this forum and no body knows the accurate answer, I guess this cannot get any clear than this

 

[Steel Detailer]

Hello everyone .. Check out this ... Clarification of intent to reside by Chris Alex ..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uMoa1vbxRWk

THANKS for the link... It means nothing to worry after all the misinterpretation regarding the "Intent to reside". It's just a requirement to be a Canadian Citizen not after being a Canadian Citizen. Cheers.

 

[sazamizi]

Thanks !

 

[fasnoon]

THANKS for the link... It means nothing to worry after all the misinterpretation regarding the "Intent to reside". It's just a requirement to be a Canadian Citizen not after being a Canadian Citizen. Cheers.

I feel, the matter is still NOT clear and will cause confusion in the future! The ministers VERBAL response SOUNDS GREAT... and is exactly what we all would like to hear, but is reality the words in the bill are different from what he is saying. Listen to the lady (Last speaker - with white hair). What she was discussing in video, is the actual words in the bill which are:

" IF GRANTED CITIZENSHIP..."
...meaning, AFTER you meet the 4 year residential requirement & you have become a CITIZEN, then you LEAVE CANADA !!!


She finally gave up after they kept saying the same thing over and over, which was clearly the opposite of what was in the bill. The ministers verbal response clears our worries as future citizens, but for the same thing to be ACCURATELY depicted in the bill, then worlds of the bill should have been more along the lines of:

"the INTENT clause specifically applies to Permanent Residents ONLY, not once they have become a citizen"


This way, future immigration ministers will have no confusion as what the current minister "means" to say.
I agree with the last lady's point, please feel free to correct my understanding of this situation.

 

[brbr]

I feel, the matter is still NOT clear and will cause confusion in the future! The ministers VERBAL response SOUNDS GREAT... and is exactly what we all would like to hear, but is reality the words in the bill are different from what he is saying. Listen to the lady (Last speaker - with white hair). What she was discussing in video, is the actual words in the bill which are:

" IF GRANTED CITIZENSHIP..."
...meaning, AFTER you meet the 4 year residential requirement & you have become a CITIZEN, then you LEAVE CANADA !!!


She finally gave up after they kept saying the same thing over and over, which was clearly the opposite of what was in the bill. The ministers verbal response clears our worries as future citizens, but for the same thing to be ACCURATELY depicted in the bill, then worlds of the bill should have been more along the lines of:

"the INTENT clause specifically applies to Permanent Residents ONLY, not once they have become a citizen"


This way, future immigration ministers will have no confusion as what the current minister "means" to say.
I agree with the last lady's point, please feel free to correct my understanding of this situation.

Fasnoon, I actually wouldn't worry so much about it though, because as Chris Alexander said, once you ARE a Canadian Citizen your citizenship cannot be revoked without contention or appeal. And since all Canadians whether naturalized or born citizens have an inalienable mobility right, then I do not think the vagueness of the wording would stand against the constitution's clarity.

 

[ottawaResident]

Sometimes I wonder if it'd just be easier to add one line in the bill that says "once you become a citizen of Canada, you are free to leave etc. in accordance with the mobility section of the Canadian Charter of Rights". Something as simple as that. But then again I am not a lawyer just like the last Senator said so

Overall I think we should be fine.

 

[brbr]

Hey all check this out, an interesting discussion with Chris Alexander on the mounted challenge against Bill C-24. I think it will stand in court though, doubt it's "unconstitutional" and if it is, I am not quite sure where it says that.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power%2B&%2BPolitics/ID/2464045323/

 

[BLT]

I think it will go like this : you may stay in other country or even never come back to Canada, as long as you don't cut your residence ties, means keep paying tax, then they will extend your passport.
Why don't Canada just adopt single citizenship, means once you are Canadian, you have to let go your other citizenship. This way, people cannot have the citizenship by convenience. Instead of imposing rules that against it's own value, like currently being challenged in the court.

 

[brbr]

I think it will go like this : you may stay in other country or even never come back to Canada, as long as you don't cut your residence ties, means keep paying tax, then they will extend your passport.
Why don't Canada just adopt single citizenship, means once you are Canadian, you have to let go your other citizenship. This way, people cannot have the citizenship by convenience. Instead of imposing rules that against it's own value, like currently being challenged in the court.

What about people who will lose substantial inheritances in their countries of origin if they give up their citizenships there? wouldn't that technically be a loss to Canada, since many people would actually bring the capital to work in Canada eventually? Mind you Germany is a one citizenship system, so I get your point.

 

[BLT]

For those that cannot let go their native citizenship, then don't apply for Canadian citizenship, just PR will taste the same. Or else wait until you get you inhert. then apply. I think they said recently that they don't need rich immigrants here. So likely they don't need people with inheritance too.

 

[brbr]

For those that cannot let go their native citizenship, then don't apply for Canadian citizenship, just PR will taste the same. Or else wait until you get you inhert. then apply. I think they said recently that they don't need rich immigrants here. So likely they don't need people with inheritance too.

lol touche, mind you I honestly don't understand what the issue is with having dual-citizenships, I mean unless you're an elected official or part of the judiciary, etc... is there TRULY a conflict of interest. Can't one love the country he was raised and born in and love Canada for it's modernity, diversity, tolerance and lifestyle... seems kinda illogical. Falling in love with more than one country isn't a bad thing, is it?

 

[BLT]

lol touche, mind you I honestly don't understand what the issue is with having dual-citizenships, I mean unless you're an elected official or part of the judiciary, etc... is there TRULY a conflict of interest. Can't one love the country he was raised and born in and love Canada for it's modernity, diversity, tolerance and lifestyle... seems kinda illogical. Falling in love with more than one country isn't a bad thing, is it?

Yes, nothing is wrong. But since the suspicion about some people not intend to stay after gotten their passport, or will leave immediately and never come back after becoming a citizen aka citizenship by convenience, and so on; Instead of imposing new laws trying to avoid this which is impossible because you cannot really rule people of where to go or what to do next, why don't just allow single citizenship, right?

 

[brbr]

Yes, nothing is wrong. But since the suspicion about some people not intend to stay after gotten their passport, or will leave immediately and never come back after becoming a citizen aka citizenship by convenience, and so on; Instead of imposing new laws trying to avoid this which is impossible because you cannot really rule people of where to go or what to do next, why don't just allow single citizenship, right?

Yeah I see your point, haha, wish there was a reliable magical lie detector that could differentiate between us the people who live and work in Canada and truly want to be citizens from those who just want a travel document. So yeah that would definitely be one way to go. I wouldn't be overly shocked if that DOES indeed happen 10-20 years down the road with a new "Strengthening" legislation.

 

[BLT]

Yeah I see your point, haha, wish there was a reliable magical lie detector that could differentiate between us the people who live and work in Canada and truly want to be citizens from those who just want a travel document. So yeah that would definitely be one way to go. I wouldn't be overly shocked if that DOES indeed happen 10-20 years down the road with a new "Strengthening" legislation.

It is true that many people only want the passport without any intention to live in Canada. Some even worse, continue to live overseas before becoming a citizen and apply with fake residency data. But I think there are much more genuine applicants who want to live here and settle down. Now the problem, it is impossible to tell which one is genuine and which one is by convenience. But trying to set a law to rule people of what to do next, is just a mission impossible.