Major Canadian citizenship reform bill coming

-TSS- · February 8, 2014

It is definitely much more difficult to obatin Canadian citizenship than almost any European citizenship, which of course is good for you. I can't understand the thinking of those people who oppose the idea that one must be able to speak the language of the country the citizen of which he/she is applying to become.

Moonlight Graham · February 8, 2014

"•Applicants 14-65 must pass the language and knowledge test, which will be administered in English or French. Currently only applicants 18-54 must do so, and they may take the knowledge test with an interpreter.

"

this will result in a might hue and cry of RACISM!!!

The people most affected will be the parents abd relatives on family reunification programs. They'll need to speak an official lanaguage now to get a Canuckistan passport.

I like that rule. There's nothing "racist" about demanding citizens to be able to speak one of our official languages. It's actually long been a requirement.

jacee · February 8, 2014

If the only reason you got in was because you were going to marry this person, and shortly therafter you break up, then you go home. You had no right to come here except for that person. Go home now, please and thank you.

It's already illegal to 'marry' only for citizenship and if proven then the person would be deported.

Legitimate marriages with breakdown in the first year are a different matter.

Keepitsimple · February 8, 2014

It's already illegal to 'marry' only for citizenship and if proven then the person would be deported.

Legitimate marriages with breakdown in the first year are a different matter.

They shouldn't be. If you came here solely to marry someone and it doesn't work out in the first year, then you go home to Germany, Russia or wherever you came from. If they want to come back to Canada, they can follow the appropriate process to get here. Outside of the separate problem of "baby citizenship" (coming here specifically to have a baby), where do you see the problem?

Edited February 8, 2014 by Keepitsimple

Big Guy · February 8, 2014

One mans terrorist is another mans nationalist. Under the new rules the honorary citizenship of Canada that we bestowed on Nelson Mandela should be revoked. He had been, after all , convicted of terrorism and treason. :wacko:

Argus · February 8, 2014

It's already illegal to 'marry' only for citizenship and if proven then the person would be deported.

Legitimate marriages with breakdown in the first year are a different matter.

How do you prove the marriage was illegimate? You can't.

Wilber · February 8, 2014

One mans terrorist is another mans nationalist. Under the new rules the honorary citizenship of Canada that we bestowed on Nelson Mandela should be revoked. He had been, after all , convicted of terrorism and treason.

Not by or against Canada he wasn't. That's why this needs to be clarified.

eyeball · February 8, 2014

I'm not interested in the specious argument aboriginals might make. I'm not a citizen of some unstated aboriginal nation, but of Canada. So I don't see this as a can of worms at all. If neither of your parents are Canadians, or at least landed immigrants, and you don't grow up in Canada, then you don't get Canadian citizenship. That isn't a novel idea, by the way. Lots of countries now have that rule. Canada just hasn't kept up with the times in terms of the ease of international travel.

These sorts of suggestions that our government be more hard-assed about the movement of human beings around the planet should be applied to the ease with which corporations are encouraged to go wherever and whenever they choose in search of a better deal.

Human beings are people too and we should also keep up with the times.

Edited February 8, 2014 by eyeball

cybercoma · February 8, 2014

How do you prove the marriage was illegimate? You can't.

Emails? Communications? Witnesses? I don't know. There's a bunch of ways. What would be stupid is to just assume they're all illegitimate.

Edited February 8, 2014 by cybercoma

Argus · February 8, 2014

Emails? Communications? Witnesses? I don't know. There's a bunch of ways. What would be stupid is to just assume they're all illegitimate.

In the great majority of cases, where someone comes to Canada as a spouse, then takes off within months, they ARE illegitimate.

And in any event, if we wouldn't have let a person here otherwise, why shouldn't we send them back where they originated? We don't owe them anything.

Keepitsimple · February 8, 2014

In the great majority of cases, where someone comes to Canada as a spouse, then takes off within months, they ARE illegitimate.

And in any event, if we wouldn't have let a person here otherwise, why shouldn't we send them back where they originated? We don't owe them anything.

I asked Jacee the same question.....haven't got an answer yet. The only reason they got in was to marry someone. If it doesn't work, back they go....which should, in the vast majority of cases, be what's best for them. Why stay in a foreign country where you don't know anyone? If they really DID like Canada, they can get in line through the proper process. Can't understand the opposition to such a stipulation.

cybercoma · February 8, 2014

In the great majority of cases, where someone comes to Canada as a spouse, then takes off within months, they ARE illegitimate.

You say that. But are they? Do you know this for sure? Do you know how often this happens? On the other hand, can you contrast that with the number of men that go to other countries, promise the good life to a woman for coming to Canada and marrying him, only to get her away from her friends, family, and everything she knows and abuse the heck out of her? Because I'm sure that happens too. At this point in the discussion we're just throwing around opinions about the way we think the world works, but you attached your opinion to a public policy recommendation. All I'm trying to do is suggest that your policy decision could have some serious undesirable consequences. Namely, that it could encourage someone to stay in an abusive relationship and remain silent so they're not deported. I can appreciate where you idea comes from, but we should have some sort of safety mechanism so the scenario I'm talking about doesn't happen too.

jacee · February 8, 2014

One mans terrorist is another mans nationalist. Under the new rules the honorary citizenship of Canada that we bestowed on Nelson Mandela should be revoked. He had been, after all , convicted of terrorism and treason.

Oh ferpetessake, will you at least READ the OP article before spewing nonsense!!

Nelson Mandela did not commit treason against Canada!

The proposed legislation would give the immigration minister the power to revoke a person's citizenship for acts against Canada.The Canadian Security Intelligence Service said on Monday the agency is aware of more than 130 Canadians working abroad in support of extremist activities. Under this bill, the government would have the power to strip Canadian citizenship from dual nationals "who were members of an armed force or an organized armed group engaged in armed conflict with Canada."

Edited February 8, 2014 by jacee

jacee · February 8, 2014

In the great majority of cases, where someone comes to Canada as a spouse, then takes off within months, they ARE illegitimate.

That's a broad assumption. It would have to be proven for the law to stick.

.

-TSS- · February 9, 2014

Is it reality or just movie-stuff that authorities when suspecting a sham-marriage taking place when a 20-year old male from Africa has married a 55-year old woman in North-America/Europe that they ask questions like: What is the colour of the curtains in your living room? What is the first name of your mother-in-law?

Keepitsimple · February 9, 2014

That's a broad assumption. It would have to be proven for the law to stick.

.

Jacee - you still haven't answered why you think they should stay. They came here only to be married. It didn't work out so back they go. Not only would they be taking up a spot that should be taken by an immigrant who has followed the process - but in the vast majority of cases, they should be better off going home - leaving bad memories and a foreign country behind. Why do you think they should be allowed to stay?

eyeball · February 9, 2014

Emails? Communications? Witnesses? I don't know. There's a bunch of ways. What would be stupid is to just assume they're all illegitimate.

Easy peasy in our surveilled times. I'm surprised this hasn't already occurred to Argus given he's such a fan of government snoops poking their noses in everyone's business. Will privacy be a right that immigrants need to earn?

In the race-to-the-bottom world we live in I suspect the seemingly tongue-in-cheek speculation about degrees or classes of citizenship and stripping people of it may not seem so funny in the not-so-distant future.

jacee · February 9, 2014

Jacee - you still haven't answered why you think they should stay. They came here only to be married. It didn't work out so back they go. Not only would they be taking up a spot that should be taken by an immigrant who has followed the process - but in the vast majority of cases, they should be better off going home - leaving bad memories and a foreign country behind. Why do you think they should be allowed to stay?

Because I'm not interested in opinion of "should", but in the law.

And because this topic of marriage isn't even mentioned in the citizenship reform bill that this thread is supposed to be about.

.

Edited February 9, 2014 by jacee

jacee · February 9, 2014

dp

Edited February 9, 2014 by jacee

Argus · February 9, 2014

That's a broad assumption. It would have to be proven for the law to stick.

.

No, it doesn't have to be proven. I'm sure that there are some cases where the Canadian partner is at fault for misleading or abusing his or her prospective spouse, but even in those cases too it seems to me the best option is for the newcomer to go back to his or her homeland and family and friends. Best for them, best for us.

I think there's a certain degree of arrogance in much of the opposition to this, an unstated assumption that coming to Canada has 'saved' these individuals from what would otherwise be a life of unspeakable misery in their own countries, which would be such an awful thing to do. I don't buy it. The spouses coming to Canada are not coming from poverty and refugee camps. They're mostly middle class people where they come from.

Argus · February 9, 2014

Is it reality or just movie-stuff that authorities when suspecting a sham-marriage taking place when a 20-year old male from Africa has married a 55-year old woman in North-America/Europe that they ask questions like: What is the colour of the curtains in your living room? What is the first name of your mother-in-law?

We're not talking about sham marriages where both parties are in on the deal. We're talking about sham marriages where the Canadian, usually someone very lonely, is stalked, romanced, and encouraged to fall in love with someone from another country, then bring them back to Canada. That inviduall then, within a few weeks or months, once they're assured they won't be sent back, dumps their husband/wife, and moves on.

I think such people are disgusting and contemptible and I don't want them in my country.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Argus

jacee · February 9, 2014

How do you prove the marriage was illegimate? You can't.

There is already a law against fraudulent marriage for citizenship. I assume the authorities have ways of investigating it.

But that isn't even the topic of this thread, not even mentioned in the citizenship reform bill.

Are you derailing on purpose?

.

jacee · February 9, 2014

No, it doesn't have to be proven.

????

Criminal charges always have to be proven before conviction and punishment can be applied.

I'm sure that there are some cases where the Canadian partner is at fault for misleading or abusing his or her prospective spouse, but even in those cases too it seems to me the best option is for the newcomer to go back to his or her homeland and family and friends. Best for them, best for us.

I think there's a certain degree of arrogance in much of the opposition to this, an unstated assumption that coming to Canada has 'saved' these individuals from what would otherwise be a life of unspeakable misery in their own countries, which would be such an awful thing to do. I don't buy it. The spouses coming to Canada are not coming from poverty and refugee camps. They're mostly middle class people where they come from.

A lot of opinion and broad assumption and no facts.

Why are you intentionally derailing this thread with this entirely irrelevant personal opinion rant ?

Pick a topic RELEVANT to the bill, and this thread:

-Canadians convicted of terrorism, espionage or treason, or who take up arms against Canada, would be stripped of their citizenship provided they are dual nationals, meaning they have citizenship in another country.

The key changes:

-Fees for citizenship applications will increase to $300 from $100. By comparison, fees are $670 in the United States and $1,600 in the United Kingdom.

-Only immigrants who have been physically present in Canada four of the past six years would quality for citizenship. Time spent in Canada without permanent resident status would no longer count towards citizenship.

-Those applying for citizenship must file Canadian income taxes, which is not currently a requirement.

-Applicants 14-65 must pass the language and knowledge test, which will be administered in English or French. Currently only applicants 18-54 must do so, and they may take the knowledge test with an interpreter.

-Penalties for fraud will increase to a maximum of $100,000 and five years in prison (from $1,000 and one year).

-Permanent residents serving in the Canadian Armed Forces would qualify for citizenship one year sooner than other applicants.

-The proposed legislation would streamline the application process by allowing citizenship officers to make decisions on applications, something only citizenship judges can do now.

-The immigration minister would have the final say in decisions to revoke citizenship, not the governor in council, as is the case now.

It should make you happy to note that penalties for citizenship fraud are increased substantially by this bill.

Stripping dual nationals of Canadian citizenship for treason is an additional punishment that can't be applied to other citizens. So we would have '2nd class citizens.

I'm interested in your opinion of the last two points, Argus, putting citizenship decisions totally in bureaucratic and political hands instead of judges and governor in council.

.

Edited February 9, 2014 by jacee

Wilber · February 9, 2014

Stripping dual nationals of Canadian citizenship for treason is an additional punishment that can't be applied to other citizens. So we would have '2nd class citizens.

We already do have two classes, those with dual citizenship and those without. The only reason it can only apply to dual citizens is you can't just leave a person with no citizenship at all.

jacee · February 10, 2014

We already do have two classes, those with dual citizenship and those without. The only reason it can only apply to dual citizens is you can't just leave a person with no citizenship at all.

They are currently treated equally under the law:

Equality Rights:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

This introduces unequal treatment of some citizens for some infractions. It could be challenged based on "national or ethnic origin" equality rights.

Harper does crap like this to appeal to his extremist core supporters: It sounds nice and nasty to them so it gets him support ... but it will never hold up against a challenge in the Supreme Court.

He's really just scamming his less-than-brilliant core supporters into thinkling he's doing something they'll like.

Edited February 10, 2014 by jacee