新闻:《影响深远的新入籍法 一片反对声中三读通过》的相关评论
杯具了
[评论]影响深远的新入籍法 一片反对声中三读通过
- 主题发起人 Les Paradis
- 发布时间 2014-06-17
不投票， 投错票不但 会影响每个人 现在的生活， 还可能影响每个人下一代在加拿大的发展
这个真的有点扯。如果父母入籍顺带未成年的孩子也入籍了，那孩子将来不在加拿大长住的话会被取消国籍？
取得了加拿大国籍，就等于放弃了中国国籍，就不存在双重国籍的问题， 这应该不能遣返的。
恭喜！保守党为加拿大又干了一件实事
对同一件事情，
站在不同的立场自然有不同的观点，
这就是为何1，2，3读都能通过的原因吧
站在不同的立场自然有不同的观点，
这就是为何1，2，3读都能通过的原因吧
good
你是站着说话不腰痛，你入籍了是吧？什么心态呀
法案只是针对双重国籍。
香港台湾可能会收影响?
我时常在想，海外很多中国人为何对中国人刻薄与刁难，经常对同胞摆出一副冷脸臭脸，这到底是怎样的心理，情感，与motivation作祟？
1. 自私的优越感
移民，那是费了老鼻子劲，很光耀门楣的事儿，我不远万里，放弃了国内的尊贵地位，经过九九八十一难，终成人人眼中羡慕‘老外’， 你丫凭啥也想和爷平起平坐，你丫滚粗！ 为了保持这种虚荣感特强的优越感，绝对不能让别人也成为让人艳羡的 ‘老外’。 同时用一种高高在上的眼光把新移民鄙视成民工。这些人的子女，所谓ABC, CBC，也非常不待见自己的族裔，虽然也许很多年后他们才意识到，白人内心没把他们当成自己人。
2. 别动老子的蛋糕
中国人讲闷声大发财。很多人能力不强，害怕竞争，更怕自己的工作被同胞抢了。记得上海人在东京里的故事吗。或者有些人本来国内就屁股不干净，躲在加拿大低调过活不想被同胞发现而羡慕嫉妒恨，所以刻意保持距离。
3. 曾经沧海难为水
在国内给人坑惨了，出国对周围的人，特别是中国人相当警觉，甚至有被迫害妄想症。主观的觉得，身边的中国人都不靠谱，也警示自己的子女，不要和中国人打交道。殊不知，其实移民中高素质高层次的比例还是非常高的。
4. 可笑的融入主流社会
这些人在美加，已经十几二十年了，在职场大约也就混到了个项目经历的级别，却与刚来的同胞或者工薪的同胞划清界限，对白人老板极尽谄媚之能事，他们是玩弄办公室政治的高手。给同胞员工加塞，pushy, 在老外面前装逼装好人，给同胞在背后骂汉奸。 所有的一切都是自私自利，追求永无止境的利益作祟。他们其实有严重的自卑心理，为了能进一步入他们所谓的主流上层社会，不仅从不和同胞说中文，还避谈自己中国的经历，（女人）处心积虑要和白人结婚生子，更恨不得把自己的皮肤漂白，愚昧可笑之极。这些人往往业务水平不差，但缺乏对历史文化的修为，眼界和智慧。殊不知，当代社会，制度变革是大势所趋，而聪敏勤奋的华裔崛起在变革之后也是历史的必然，不仅中国会变成真正文明大国，而且华人也就是会成为主流社会中一份子，抛弃对自身族裔的认同必然将成为没有归所的灵魂。
这里不得不谈谈犹太人以及和印度人。犹太人的聪明据说是和中国人一样的，而他们的团结有目共睹，当年纳粹那么凶残也没有击垮这个历经沧桑的族裔，才有了后来的犹太人复国，民族复兴，与今天的世界地位。 印度人，同样来自欠发达的大陆（甚至更加不如），同样是机会资源很少需要不停竞争奋斗才能出人头地的地方。 但是海外的印度人的团结令中国人羞愧。大家都知道，印度人只要在公司里站住脚，就立即把自己的同胞通过各种办法弄进来，把自己的亲戚从海外弄过来， 然后像蜘蛛网一样不停扩大，最后这些同胞再把自己人推进高层，为更多同胞谋福利。看看微软的新总裁，看看其他硅谷的巨头公司的印度VP 以及高管。不知道聪明的中国人， 你是否意识到 团结才是力量这个最浅显却最实用的道理？只有自己的族裔才能真正为自己的利益战斗。奉劝这些朋友，别总忙着赚钱，玩乐，多提高自己身的修为和境界吧 。
怎么没人读读移民部长在三读会议上关于“长期居住愿望”的发言？
http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-24/#?page=1
First, I will discuss the questions that have arisen in the media, in the House, and elsewhere about the bill. There have been a few lawyers and a few voices in the House questioning the need to require those applying for citizenship to declare their intent to reside. Subparagraph 3(1)(c)(i) of the bill asks that the applicant be required to intend, if granted, to continue to reside in Canada. Some have misunderstood this provision to mean that anyone applying for citizenship or seeking to meet the requirements of citizenship, which would be four years of residency out of six, must declare an intention to reside in Canada for the rest of their lives. Nothing could be further from the truth and those who have perpetrated this misunderstanding have simply not read the further paragraph, which is (2)(1.1), on page 12 of the bill as I have it printed. It states:
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.
The intention to reside that we are requiring, which we wish had been required in the flawed 1977 version of this bill, relates to the period of physical presence in Canada, residency in Canada, required to become a citizen. That has always been a requirement to become a citizen for 100 years. It was in June 1914 when a five-year residency requirement was formally put in place. That was watered down by the Liberals under Pierre Trudeau in 1977. We think it merits an increase to four out of six years, but with a declaration of intent to fulfill this requirement.
Why is it important that we secure that declaration of intent? It is because, not just in Canada but around the world, many consultants and lawyers have sought to misrepresent this requirement and to argue that residency in Canada did not require a physical presence here, did not require the intent to actually be here. Hence, we have this large backlog of abuse that the RCMP is investigating, which may lead to revocation of citizenship. We need to send a clear message.
Henceforth, with the passage of this bill, residency will mean a physical presence in this country for four years out of six. We will require applicants to declare it over the period from the submission of their application to the day when they take the oath of citizenship.
Let me remind this House, nothing in those provisions constrains the mobility rights of either a permanent resident or a citizen. Someone can have the intent to reside, but then their plans change and they move elsewhere, not fulfilling the residency requirements for citizenship. They do not become a citizen, perhaps until later in their life. After they obtain citizenship, of course Canadians are free to do whatever they want as citizens.
http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-2/C-24/#?page=1
First, I will discuss the questions that have arisen in the media, in the House, and elsewhere about the bill. There have been a few lawyers and a few voices in the House questioning the need to require those applying for citizenship to declare their intent to reside. Subparagraph 3(1)(c)(i) of the bill asks that the applicant be required to intend, if granted, to continue to reside in Canada. Some have misunderstood this provision to mean that anyone applying for citizenship or seeking to meet the requirements of citizenship, which would be four years of residency out of six, must declare an intention to reside in Canada for the rest of their lives. Nothing could be further from the truth and those who have perpetrated this misunderstanding have simply not read the further paragraph, which is (2)(1.1), on page 12 of the bill as I have it printed. It states:
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.
The intention to reside that we are requiring, which we wish had been required in the flawed 1977 version of this bill, relates to the period of physical presence in Canada, residency in Canada, required to become a citizen. That has always been a requirement to become a citizen for 100 years. It was in June 1914 when a five-year residency requirement was formally put in place. That was watered down by the Liberals under Pierre Trudeau in 1977. We think it merits an increase to four out of six years, but with a declaration of intent to fulfill this requirement.
Why is it important that we secure that declaration of intent? It is because, not just in Canada but around the world, many consultants and lawyers have sought to misrepresent this requirement and to argue that residency in Canada did not require a physical presence here, did not require the intent to actually be here. Hence, we have this large backlog of abuse that the RCMP is investigating, which may lead to revocation of citizenship. We need to send a clear message.
Henceforth, with the passage of this bill, residency will mean a physical presence in this country for four years out of six. We will require applicants to declare it over the period from the submission of their application to the day when they take the oath of citizenship.
Let me remind this House, nothing in those provisions constrains the mobility rights of either a permanent resident or a citizen. Someone can have the intent to reside, but then their plans change and they move elsewhere, not fulfilling the residency requirements for citizenship. They do not become a citizen, perhaps until later in their life. After they obtain citizenship, of course Canadians are free to do whatever they want as citizens.
华人们，你们再敢事不关己高高挂起，再敢不团结不抱团吗？ 看不清小白的真实内心吗？ 他们很多人懒惰不工作去领救济，你们勤奋获起早贪黑早生华发获取了财富，现在他们眼红了，因为资源就这么多，蛋糕就这么大，他们害怕你们的勤劳勇敢聪明，所以要从各方面制约你们！很多指责是小白无中生有的挑拨和迫害妄想，绝大部分华裔都是低调，谦恭的，比什么中东，老黑，难民等要遵纪守法的多，也同时为社会创造更多的财富与文明。为何仍然，有些白人却依旧抱着旧世界的观念横加指责？ 人善被人欺吗？
加拿大保守党政府深谙厚黑之道，骨子里的排华排外心理没有实质性变化。而且用的是 “温水煮青蛙式”的渐进而且隐性的道路，说不定以后都可以剥夺非白族裔的公民权。如果说100多年前白人政府是不加修饰地公开歧视华裔，那么现在，可能更多是由于害怕华裔的富有强大而会有政治诉求（虽然华人更多时候是一盘散沙），或许当今时代这种排挤变得更加虚伪和隐蔽。我不是阴谋论者，但君不见，移民部一而再，再而三弄出各种荒诞剧，还冠冕堂皇的justify。这种事Uncle Sam做出不来，因为加拿大政府不如人家民主却更加官僚，这和效忠英皇的保皇历史一脉相承。
我真的怀疑人性能在100多年间会从殖民者的自私残酷 一下 高大升华到成 ‘圣母白莲花’（也许二战和冷战是个自我反思的契机），曾经和不少德国人深入相处，惊讶发现，哪怕是受过很好教育的温文尔雅的德国人，骨子里还是非常怀念第三帝国的强大时代（也许这说明不了太多 ）。也许当今时代的西方政客们是虚伪和自我改良并存，但无法否认人类文明与思想需要几百上千年的时间才能真正有质的提升。
如果民众还不发声讨伐，后果不堪设想。华裔们，你们以为手里的枫叶卡或者护照十拿九稳吗， 还心安理得坐得住吗？也许这左翼分子就是看出来你们华人胆小怕事，不够团结，然后会进一步得寸进尺。
First they came...
在美国波士顿犹太大屠杀纪念碑上，一个叫马丁的德国牧师留下了沉痛的忏悔之语：“起初他们追杀共产主义者，我不是共产主义者，我不说话；接着他们追杀犹太人，我不是犹太人，我不说话；后来他们追杀工会会员，我不是工会会员，我不说话；此后他们追杀天主教徒，我不是天主教徒，我不说话；最后，他们奔我而来，再也没有人站起来为我说话了。”
加拿大保守党政府深谙厚黑之道，骨子里的排华排外心理没有实质性变化。而且用的是 “温水煮青蛙式”的渐进而且隐性的道路，说不定以后都可以剥夺非白族裔的公民权。如果说100多年前白人政府是不加修饰地公开歧视华裔，那么现在，可能更多是由于害怕华裔的富有强大而会有政治诉求（虽然华人更多时候是一盘散沙），或许当今时代这种排挤变得更加虚伪和隐蔽。我不是阴谋论者，但君不见，移民部一而再，再而三弄出各种荒诞剧，还冠冕堂皇的justify。这种事Uncle Sam做出不来，因为加拿大政府不如人家民主却更加官僚，这和效忠英皇的保皇历史一脉相承。
我真的怀疑人性能在100多年间会从殖民者的自私残酷 一下 高大升华到成 ‘圣母白莲花’（也许二战和冷战是个自我反思的契机），曾经和不少德国人深入相处，惊讶发现，哪怕是受过很好教育的温文尔雅的德国人，骨子里还是非常怀念第三帝国的强大时代（也许这说明不了太多 ）。也许当今时代的西方政客们是虚伪和自我改良并存，但无法否认人类文明与思想需要几百上千年的时间才能真正有质的提升。
如果民众还不发声讨伐，后果不堪设想。华裔们，你们以为手里的枫叶卡或者护照十拿九稳吗， 还心安理得坐得住吗？也许这左翼分子就是看出来你们华人胆小怕事，不够团结，然后会进一步得寸进尺。
First they came...
在美国波士顿犹太大屠杀纪念碑上，一个叫马丁的德国牧师留下了沉痛的忏悔之语：“起初他们追杀共产主义者，我不是共产主义者，我不说话；接着他们追杀犹太人，我不是犹太人，我不说话；后来他们追杀工会会员，我不是工会会员，我不说话；此后他们追杀天主教徒，我不是天主教徒，我不说话；最后，他们奔我而来，再也没有人站起来为我说话了。”
民主是多数对少数的暴政，尔等明白？
能被撤销的公民权，是伪公民权。
能被撤销的公民权，是伪公民权。
只不過提高了入籍的門檻，讓原來容易的事變得難了點，有那麼嚴重嗎？需要如此這般的深度透析、廣度解讀嗎？
不算多麼壞的變化，也不算多麼好的改革，但有一點可以明確的是，這入籍新法對於那些真正計劃在加拿大長住的人士并沒有實質性的影響。
不算多麼壞的變化，也不算多麼好的改革，但有一點可以明確的是，這入籍新法對於那些真正計劃在加拿大長住的人士并沒有實質性的影響。
最后编辑: 2014-06-17
关键不在于延长入籍时间,在于政府可以不通过法庭直接取消公民国籍.
加拿大宪法专家已经申明了:C-24违宪!
拿了身份就回流，是我的自由，难道不可以吗？ - 当然可以！
国内有丰厚的收入，但是在加拿大不报税或者报0税拿福利，是合理利用规则，难道不可以吗？ - 当然可以！
入了籍，有了投票权，但是我懒得投，是我的权利，难道不可以吗？ - 当然可以！
可以，可以，都可以！那么现在保守党这么做可以吗？当然也可以！
国内有丰厚的收入，但是在加拿大不报税或者报0税拿福利，是合理利用规则，难道不可以吗？ - 当然可以！
入了籍，有了投票权，但是我懒得投，是我的权利，难道不可以吗？ - 当然可以！
可以，可以，都可以！那么现在保守党这么做可以吗？当然也可以！
现在加拿大国籍很拽吗？他自己准备这辈子死在加拿大，除此之外没有选择，所以才对这样限制自由的法律说好。
最后编辑: 2014-06-17
迁徙自由是加拿大宪法的规定，是联合国人权宪章的规定，到图书馆墙上去看看人权宪章的条款。
加拿大保守党的党派行为，怎么可以跟人权宪章相提并论，照你这么说，这世界上立法者有无限的权力？
权力，非权利，权利是人人生而有之的保障和底线。
最后编辑: 2014-06-17
注册或登录来发表评论
您必须是注册会员才可以发表评论
注册帐号
注册帐号. 太容易了!
登录
已有帐号? 在这里登录.
Similar threads
2024-04-21有新赞
全楼:0.00
flashlight
