Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
What a uninformed comment. How does someone leaving Canada to go to Europe to take a flying job disadvantage you? If anything, they've just reduced the competition in Canada for jobs by one, and opened up a job for you. Sounds more like jealousy to me, that you don't have the options they do with two passports. But guess what, life isn't fair. You have more options, being born in Canada, with your single passport, than most people on the rest of the planet.If it means that much to you renounce your citizenship from your original country and turn that passport in, I mean you obviously moved to Canada because you believed you'd have a better life here so why the need to keep your old one. By keeping both now you have an advantage over a born Canadian in so far as you can easily go back to Europe and get a flying job ( something I'm not able to do as a Canadian only passport holder).
Well, actually the linked article says that the main stated reason for citizenship revocation beyond fraud when applying, would be for people convicted of serious crimes such as fighting in a foreign military against Canada, treason, or terrorism. Hardly trivial things, and if proved legally, what exactly is the argument for allowing such fine "citizens" to retain their Canadian passports?I don't think under those circumstances you are threatened by the loss of your passport. It's about whether you flat-out lied at the time when you said you wanted to live in Canada. Not about what happens afterwards.
You are required on applying for citizenship that you intend to live in Canada:10. (1) Subject to subsection 10.1(1), the Minister may revoke a person’s citizenship or renunciation of citizenship if the Minister is satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the person has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed his or her citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances.
The wording in the act:Finally, Bill C-24 would require citizenship applicants to declare their intention to reside in Canada before citizenship is granted. This measure would signal that citizenship is for those who intend to make their home in Canada. Citizenship is not for individuals who solely want the convenience of holding a Canadian passport in order to benefit from generous tax-payer-funded benefits without contributing to Canadian society.
If you lie about your intent to reside then you have made a false representation and your citizenship can be revoked. I really don't see that as controversial.(c.1) intends, if granted citizenship,
(i) to continue to reside in Canada,
My point exactly, it's not fair. If you immigrate here then decide to move away never tocomplexintentions wrote:But guess what, life isn't fair.
I have run up around $500,000 in medical expenses in the past two years. My monthly cancer pills cost $7,000 a month. I have never reached in my pocket for anything. As our HR person who administers healthcare insurance says, we have the Rolls Royce of plans.Roar wrote:
You are correct our health care system is not perfect, but what would you say is a better system? Maybe pay huge premiums for private insurance that will run out if your care runs over a predetermined amount or have that insurance company deny a claim for any small reason they can. Because we all know insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums not paying out claims.
Unless you obtained your citizenship very recently, you would not have had to. The "intent to reside" clause is new, part of the bill in question that became law in 2014.Eric Janson wrote: I'm an Expat and I'm not worried about losing my Canadian citizenship. I don't remember having to state my intention to live in Canada when I obtained my citizenship.
.
An unproven, unsubstantiated giant suppositional leap, and just plain old scare tactics. Appealing to emotion instead of logic.For example, all citizens born outside Canada (i.e. naturalized citizens) may lose their citizenship if the citizenship officer believes they do not intend to live in Canada or if they decide to move to another country to study or to work.
Well, um, yeah. That's kinda the concept behind this bill I believe - attaching consequences to behaviour. An alien one, perhaps, in this day and age. But the bill seems pretty clear that the behaviour has to be pretty dire to lose the citizenship: fraudulently obtained, acts of war, terrorism, treason. So if it really is that obvious - from a credible legal perspective - that citizenship will be revoked for attempting to make a living elsewhere, then please someone post some evidence to support that.It means that government would reward them citizenship for “good behavior” and could take it away for “bad behavior”. This is a form of “punishment,” and in fact, an unnecessary punishment, especially when there are other avenues to deal with the so-called “bad behavior”.
And an excerpt from the following paragraphs, which defines "intent":3. (1) Paragraphs 5(1)(c) to (e) of the Act are replaced by the following:
(c) is a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, has, subject to the regulations, no unfulfilled conditions under that Act relating to his or her status as a permanent resident and has, since becoming a permanent resident,
(i) been physically present in Canada for at least 1,460 days during the six years immediately before the date of his or her application,
(ii) been physically present in Canada for at least 183 days during each of four calendar years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of his or her application, and
(iii) met any applicable requirement under the Income Tax Act to file a return of income in respect of four taxation years that are fully or partially within the six years immediately before the date of his or her application;
(c.1) intends, if granted citizenship,
(i) to continue to reside in Canada,
(ii) to enter into, or continue in, employment outside Canada in or with the Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the public service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person, or
(iii) to reside with his or her spouse or common-law partner or parent, who is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and is employed outside Canada in or with the Canadian Armed Forces, the federal public administration or the public service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person;
(d) if under 65 years of age at the date of his or her application, has an adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada;
(e) if under 65 years of age at the date of his or her application, demonstrates in one of the official languages of Canada that he or she has an adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship; and
I'm not a lawyer by any means (*shudder*). But it seems pretty clear to me that you only have to possess, and demonstrate, intent to continue to reside in Canada, from your "date of application until you've taken the oath of citizenship". (How're they going to prove intent, anyway?!) So if someone's intention changes after they're sworn in, I don't think they're gonna break down the door and take the passport and kick you back to your native Buttplugistan. Now if you've been visiting ISIS recruitment websites, they might be singing a different tune.(2) Subsection 5(1.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Intention (1.1) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c.1) and 11(1)(d.1), the person’s intention must be continuous from the date of his or her application until they have taken the oath of citizenship.
My above comment has nothing to do with international care coverage. It's about the Canadian health care system, the problems it has, yet despite those problems it's better than what happens under private plans on a national level.bmc wrote:I have run up around $500,000 in medical expenses in the past two years. My monthly cancer pills cost $7,000 a month. I have never reached in my pocket for anything. As our HR person who administers healthcare insurance says, we have the Rolls Royce of plans.Roar wrote:
You are correct our health care system is not perfect, but what would you say is a better system? Maybe pay huge premiums for private insurance that will run out if your care runs over a predetermined amount or have that insurance company deny a claim for any small reason they can. Because we all know insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums not paying out claims.
Try to not make outlandish claims. You have no familiarity with international care coverage. You maybe familiar with Canada and what ever is reported in the USA.
Not only have I read the bill, I even posted the relevant portions in this thread yesterday.complexintentions wrote: Bonus question: hands up, how many people posting in this thread actually read some of the bill?
Yeah, thought so.
complexintentions wrote:Can you post a link to this "intent to reside" clause, from an official government source?
The only reference I have seen so far is to the article loopa linked to: http://www.sfu.ca/education/cels/biling ... -c-24.html, which is written by one Somayeh Bahrami, proud holder of a Masters in Gender, Sexuality, & Women’s Studies from Simon Fraser University, which leaves me unclear as to how she is qualified to offer any sort of "critical review" of Bill C-24 whatsoever.
This is her quote:
An unproven, unsubstantiated giant suppositional leap, and just plain old scare tactics. Appealing to emotion instead of logic.For example, all citizens born outside Canada (i.e. naturalized citizens) may lose their citizenship if the citizenship officer believes they do not intend to live in Canada or if they decide to move to another country to study or to work.
Another gem:
Well, um, yeah. That's kinda the concept behind this bill I believe - attaching consequences to behaviour. An alien one, perhaps, in this day and age. But the bill seems pretty clear that the behaviour has to be pretty dire to lose the citizenship: fraudulently obtained, acts of war, terrorism, treason. So if it really is that obvious - from a credible legal perspective - that citizenship will be revoked for attempting to make a living elsewhere, then please someone post some evidence to support that.It means that government would reward them citizenship for “good behavior” and could take it away for “bad behavior”. This is a form of “punishment,” and in fact, an unnecessary punishment, especially when there are other avenues to deal with the so-called “bad behavior”.
I am an expat, born in Canada. But even if I was a naturalized citizen and subject to this bill, I could not have my Canadian citizenship revoked as my expat residency is not citizenship in my adopted country (UAE) and does not have that right. Thus if my citizenship was revoked I would be stateless, and Canada would not be in compliance with the Convention of Reduction of Statelessness (1961) that they are a party to. I mean that's even on the Infographic fer crissake.
Read the actual material people, not just the hysterical Civil Liberties press releases.
No - anyone willing to put in the time and money can obtain an EASA ATPL.loopa wrote:I also learned from some of you that there's 0 ties between your residency/citizenship and your physical aviation licenses, this is something I didn't know before. So thanks for clarifying that up guys. So then is it the same in order to obtain your JAA licenses? Do you not need to live or have the right to work there in order to get a JAA/EASA ATPL registered to say the UK?
|
|
Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!
We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal
behavior is apparent.
All rights reserved.
