What (some) birth Canadians think about immigrants

[links18]

You pointed out so correctly that in the US you will always hear about Illegal immigrants, and they are working towards making people legal/ documented. Not so much about giving LPRs hard time. I always wonder what woulda happened here if there were 12-14 million undocumented people living in Canada. Government is freaking out with PRs and making all kinds of laws to protect and strengthen citizenship. Just dont get it!

Politics my friend, politics. Nobody wants to be against "strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship." Cons can wield this kind of rhetoric like a club over the opposition, force them to go along and score political points with their base all at the same time.

 

[vic48912]

True but this is kind of like the intent you sign for PNP nominations that you intend to settle in that province. Nobody has lost their PR so far for leaving their PNP province. Even if they do decide to go after people at some point, they would have to prove that you lied at the time. You could have intended to continue to reside in Canada at the time but as intentions change and real people have real lives and real events happen that can change the situation, just because you moved some time after getting citizenship doesn't necessarily mean that you did not intend to stay in Canada when you got it.

Leon, your explanation which is the only reasonable way to look at that Claus really gives folks goose pimples.....such clause on PNP application and incorporating same clause in citizenship requirement is a different league. It is very easy to prosecute and prove you lied in your citizenship application if someone is determined to enforce it, just because it has not been enforced does not mean one crazy politician wouldn't use that loop hole in the status book to deprive some folks of their citizenship some time in the future.....PNP applicants are not citizens, it's different league

 

[Leon]

You think it would be easier to revoke citizenship because of the intent clause than to revoke the PR of a PNP applicant? I think it would be just as hard or even harder. There is no experience because it has never happened yet so we will have to see in the future what happens. Intent is a state of mind so it is very hard for immigration to prove what state of mind someone had. It is a lot easier to prove residency fraud where the person either was in Canada or they weren't.

I have not heard Canadians complain about immigrants very much but I have heard a lot more about refugees. Many Canadians seem to think that it is very easy to claim refugee status and many seem to have all kind of ideas about how much money is given to refugees as assistance. You would think that they all get 3000 a month or something and a free apartment which is surely not the case.

 

[keesio]

You think it would be easier to revoke citizenship because of the intent clause than to revoke the PR of a PNP applicant? I think it would be just as hard or even harder. There is no experience because it has never happened yet so we will have to see in the future what happens. Intent is a state of mind so it is very hard for immigration to prove what state of mind someone had. It is a lot easier to prove residency fraud where the person either was in Canada or they weren't.

I've been arguing the same exact thing in another thread:
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/new-citizenship-bill-thursday-feb-6th-t184049.0.html;msg2889679#msg2889679

People are really making a big deal over nothing. There are much larger issues in the bill than the "intent" clause.

 

[on-hold]

I've been arguing the same exact thing in another thread:
http://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/new-citizenship-bill-thursday-feb-6th-t184049.0.html;msg2889679#msg2889679

People are really making a big deal over nothing. There are much larger issues in the bill than the "intent" clause.

I'm honestly of two minds about this. Realistically, you and Leon are probably correct -- I hadn't thought of the PNP example before.

Symbolically, however, I think it's a stupid and unpleasant clause for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Becoming a citizen is a pact between an individual and the State and is more than taxes and services; its universality and permanence are important. Probably the 'intent' clause has no practical application; but it is a symbolic difference between birth Canadians and immigrant Canadians. Harper saw a benefit to himself politically -- many people who vote for him are enthusiastic that it is officially recognized that immigrants are supposed to live here -- and he was willing to take it. He's a smart guy, and I'm going to assume that he knows what citizenship really is, but that means that he doesn't mind pretending it's something different.

 

[links18]

I'm honestly of two minds about this. Realistically, you and Leon are probably correct -- I hadn't thought of the PNP example before.

Symbolically, however, I think it's a stupid and unpleasant clause for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Becoming a citizen is a pact between an individual and the State and is more than taxes and services; its universality and permanence are important. Probably the 'intent' clause has no practical application; but it is a symbolic difference between birth Canadians and immigrant Canadians. Harper saw a benefit to himself politically -- many people who vote for him are enthusiastic that it is officially recognized that immigrants are supposed to live here -- and he was willing to take it. He's a smart guy, and I'm going to assume that he knows what citizenship really is, but that means that he doesn't mind pretending it's something different.

This is probably the reality of it. But the entire thing creates smacks of bitterness and suspicion. It basically accuses immigrants of seeking to practice "citizenship of convienence" before the fact.

 

[Dejaavu]

On-hold,

Right on.
I thought Canada was much friendlier to immigrants than US but the more I live here the more I realize I was wrong.

For all US' problems, legal permanent residents are treated much better and naturalized citizens are respected more in the US than naturalized Canadians in Canada....

 

[CanuckForEver]

Saying Harper wants immigrants to stay here and that's his policy focus makes him a saint . His real intentions are not that honorable. These reforms are xenophobic at the best. They want citizenship tests shoved down the throat of minor children up until the age of 65!!!?? :-X, give minister extra constitutional powers without ombudsman oversight :'(, intent to stay in Canada clause :. Sure the minister said the power newly endowed on him is fairly for extreme conditions only, but I (and I am sure many others too) have little trust with these people. I see this as a mincing of words to get those powers through the bill getting passed. Then for the next 20+ months they can start gerrymandering using the citizenship minister rulings, elections Canada muzzling and so on and so forth.
For the people who claim that the naturally born Canadians who are expatriate didnt have a choice unlike naturalized Canadians who took a solemn oath(which though do not say anything about taking a career elsewhere that seems appealing to you), I say both hold their allegiance to Canada and are being protected (or supposedly) by the constitution of Canada which offers the right of mobility. It is not the oath itself that is significant, rather it is the allegiance that results from the oath that the naturalized Canadians are held upon that is significant which happens with the born Canadians right from the time of there birth inherently. So no separate rules for goose and gander , all are in fact Canadians 8).
But for a government that is so hellbent in being such a backward regressing administration not only in citizenship, but also in various other issues like veterans affairs , senate scandal :-Xs, environmental research muzzling, first nations and so on, the administration can try to see what could be done from its side to stop exacerbating these problems. Particularly in our case, the Canadians flocking to greener pastures for better opportunities, the government can see the vast differences on investments on businesses and innovation happening in down the border USA and in itself . In fact Canada is larger than USA, Canada has better resources and still Canadian government and generally the Canadian system is seen as risk averse , who want to serve their US masters through their service industry and not try to start their own initiatives. Why would you think otherwise a Canadian government has to keep begging for a oil pipeline to USA while it can build the infrastructure right here and not only bring the oil price much lesser than what the prevailing rates in USA are, but also create a global market for its relatively cheaper oil than OPEC. Rather this government is spending taxpayers money on public advertising in US subways and billiboards that Canada is willing to do business with USA at USA's terms and is willing to perpetually serve its modern days colonial masters. Let me ask this thing, if this is the attitude of Canadian government, why wont the Canadians, naturally born or naturalized, flock to US where entrepreneurialship thrives?

 

[margobear96]

I guarantee you that the United States assumes new Americans want to live in America, and if they don't, well, then they'll be Americans abroad.

The US is not oblivious to the problem of citizens of convenience....

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html#1994

1994 citizenship law amendments (Pub.L. 103-416)

On 25 October 1994, President Clinton signed Public Law 103-416 (108 Stat. 4305), the "Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994". This bill made several notable changes to the laws pertaining to naturalization.

Previously, candidates for US citizenship were required to state that they intended to reside permanently in the US following naturalization. This requirement was repealed by Congress.

The law had previously stated that a newly naturalized US citizen who, within one year following his naturalization, abandoned his US residence and set up a permanent residence outside the US (whether in his country of origin, or in any other country) was presumed to have misrepresented his intentions regarding permanent residence on his citizenship application (though this presumption could be overcome by appropriate evidence to the contrary), and on this basis could have his US citizenship cancelled retroactively. This provision was also repealed.

 

[Halo]

It is less of an issue for Americans because the US taxes based on citizenship and it is a much more "pay as you go" system.

I don't believe it is unreasonable for those who actively seek Canadian citizenship, and desire to have the benefits of that citizenship, to contribute to the country. Why would an immigrant seek Canadian citizenship is he/she has no desire to live in Canada long term?

 

[marcus66502]

You pointed out so correctly that in the US you will always hear about Illegal immigrants, and they are working towards making people legal/ documented. Not so much about giving LPRs hard time. I always wonder what woulda happened here if there were 12-14 million undocumented people living in Canada. Government is freaking out with PRs and making all kinds of laws to protect and strengthen citizenship. Just dont get it!

I don't think it makes sense to draw parallels with the US here. There is no comparison whatsoever. It's apples and oranges. Even if there were a parallel situation in Canada of an illegal immigration problem, there wouldn't be 12-14 million illegals. Instead, proportional to Canada's population and settlable land area, it would be about 1.5 million at the most.

More to the point, however, part of the reason Canada doesn't have so much of an immigration problem is that its immigration policies are much more liberal than those of the US. Entire classes of people that enter the US under regular non-immigrant status and then go underground and become illegal don't exist in Canada because Canada is just too happy to grant these people legal permanent residence.

Example, you're a foreign student. This is a temporary status and in the US you're supposed to return home at the end of your studies. The mere fact that you studied in the US doesn't qualify you for permanent residence. This is true even if you got a PhD there. You must still qualify for residence the same way as everyone else does (i.e. family or employer sponsorship, or else win the DV lottery or take your chances with asylum). Needless to say these options are damn near impossible and many beyond your control so most people don't even bother with them and instead just do underground and become illegal.

In stark contrast, in Canada you don't even have to finish your PhD studies to qualify for permanent residence on your own. You just have to be enrolled in any PhD program and be at a certain stage of it and voila ... you can file a permanent residence application on your own based on merely the fact that you're in a PhD program.

This is like comparing the admission policies of Harvard versus those of the University of Kansas. The two have nothing in common. You could critique each of them on its own merits but cross-comparison makes no sense.

 

[marcus66502]

Noone answered this question I asked before.. I will ask again.. Why someone has to be forced to live(reside) in a country if the country has so much to offer? Does anyone else think that the focus is completely on a wrong spot by this administration? Shouldnt we be working on creating more jobs, more economic growth, encourage entrepreneurs to set up more businesses and job creation etc. so that people will NOT want to leave and try to find something better somewhere else? Anyone see the core issue here?

The 'intent-to-reside-in-Canada' clause should be called what it is: the 'promise-that-you-won't-leave-canada-for-better-opportunities-in-the-US' clause. It's an absurd clause because it won't stop anyone from leaving for better careers elsewhere. What the Conservatives want is loyalty for loyalty's sake. Sorry to bust the bubble of 80-year old MPs but no such thing exists today. You don't live in a country just because of the name. You live in it because of the quality of life. Just like in a chess game, you don't care so much about the shape of, say, a bishop piece. That's irrelevant to winning the game. You want to know what it does for you in the field.

I find it funny that this act is called "Strengthening the Canadian Citizenship Act" in a time when Prime Minister Harper says that for purposes of the law the Queen of England is a Canadian citizen. She was not born in Canada and was never naturalized in accordance with the Canadian law that applies to everyone else. So basically it's just Prime Minister Harper issuing arbitrary decrees making her a citizen. I can't think of anything else that cheapens Canadian citizenship more than Harper acting like a King, waving his magic stick at people and saying "I pronounce you Canadian."

I think a lot of the criticism of the policies of this country is done from the wrong perspective. You can't expect from Canada the level of maturity of other older nations. In many levels this country is a joke and so it's policies have to be viewed from an adjusted angle. Then they won't seem so absurd.

 

[keesio]

You can't expect from Canada the level of maturity of other older nations.

This is not always a bad thing. Many more mature countries don't even allow you the right to become a citizen even if you were born in the country. Some discriminate by ethnicity. Example is Japan. Many examples of people of Japanese heritage being able to quickly Japanese citizenship despite generations of separation from Japan and with no ties what so ever anymore.. There are people who have generations born in Japan and have trouble claiming citizenship because they are not of japanese decent. They make it very hard with a lot of red tape if you are not of Japanese decent (and more "pure" is better). Japan is not the only country that does this. A lot of these "mature older" nations have some pretty strict policies and give preferential treatment via ethnic decent. I'm glad Canada doesn't do this or I would have never been able to be a citizen (at least easily). US and Canadian immigration laws are going backwards but I am still grateful that it is fairly open. And it should be, given its history as a nation of immigrants vs some of those old mature countries. Let's criticize the more strict laws but I see a lot of people really start to put Canada down in general and we don't need to do that.

 

[Drea]

A lot of these "mature older" nations have some pretty strict policies and give preferential treatment via ethnic decent. I'm glad Canada doesn't do this or I would have never been able to be a citizen (at least easily).

Actually, if Canada wanted to do this, then only the First Nations would get preferential treatment, wouldn't they? ;D

 

[keesio]

Actually, if Canada wanted to do this, then only the First Nations would get preferential treatment, wouldn't they? ;D

Well actually it wouldn't because the First Nations people are not in control. Otherwise, according to your logic, it should be the Ainu people (indigenous people of what is now Japan) in Japan getting preferential treatment in Japan, not what is defined as "ethnic Japanese"