The change was made to prevent future generations from claiming citizenship by descent when they never intend to live in Canada. Between 1977 and 2009, as long as someone had Canadian citizenship, their children would automatically gain citizenship by descent, and their children too, all without having any ties to Canada. During the 2006 Lebanon War, Canada evacuated thousands of dual nationals that had Canadian citizenship that were living in Lebanon, only to have half of them return to Lebanon a short time later. These people became known as "Canadians of convenience".
Living in Canada with child who is apparently not even a citizen!
- Thread starter RobbieRail
- Start date
I'm aware of the reasons and i still think it was a stupid and punitive knee jerk reaction, with real costs. Read my post and see that there were and are functional policy alternatives, such as used by the USA, that do not require instituting a separate and inferior class of citizenship (inferior to naturalized citizenship, where the requirements can involve only residing in Canada for somewhat over three years}.
As in the case above, I was born "by accident" abroad and returned to Canada < 1 yr old. Did not reside outside Canada before ~30 yrs of age. Second degree Canadian, thanks to that Harper policy.
In my opinion, the American rules for citizenship by descent are harsher than the Canadian rules. The American parent has to have lived in the US for at least 5 years, and the child has to be under the age of 18. Then the child has to be in the US (not an embassy) for naturalization. True this can lead to future generations acquiring citizenship, but each time, physical presence must be established.
Under any country's nationality law, there are rules for how one can acquire the respective citizenship through birth, marriage, descent, naturalization, etc. with each having different guidelines, so I don't feel your interpretation of being a second degree Canadian (or even the existence of such a notion) is true. Aside from not being able to pass down citizenship to your children if they are born abroad, how is your citizenship and the rights and privileges it grants any different than someone who was born or naturalized in Canada?
I agree the USA rules are harsher. On top of the 5 year requirement, I believe there is also an additional requirement for the parent to have lived in the US for at least 2 years after they turn 14.
The American rules are harsher - but they apply equally to all. The child born abroad does not have to be in the US, though - it can be done at an Embassy.
It is not logical to say "there really aren't any differences - aside from the differences, what differences are there?" The difference itself is the difference.
My class of citizenship has a more restrictive ability to pass on citizenship - that is, right there, a lesser set of privileges than those born in Canada have. Since there are no additional privileges that accrue from being born abroad - it is a second, and lower, class of citizenship.
Of course. And some countries' rules are harsher, more unfair, or otherwise problematic, and some of them do create 'classes' of citizenship. It is to Canada's shame, in my opinion, that we do have second-degree citizenship. And to Harper's government for this reactionary move.
Per the link, "The child is lawfully admitted, physically present, and maintaining a lawful status in the United States at the time the application is approved and the time of naturalization." The child has to go to the US for the actual naturalization; it can't be done at an embassy.
The parent just has to bring move back and sponsor their child for PR then apply for immediate naturalization; seems pretty reasonable to have established ties for citizenship, and in a way similar to the US where the child has to be in the US for naturalization. With this in mind, what prevented or will prevent you from having your children in Canada, so that they can be citizens by birth, and not descent?
If this is a bad policy, then why have the other parties not tried to reverse it yet? I think they are aware of the dangers of unlimited citizenship by descent, and don't want another incident like the mass evacuations to happen at the cost to Canadian taxpayers.
A child born of a US citizen who has spent the requisite number of years (six above age sixteen or whatever it is exactly) is not naturalized, but a child by birth (descent if you like). Don't know what you're talking about. Not going to look it up as have specific evidence of this being done.
As above, your assumption is wrong. And it misses the point: whether the Canadian requirement is 'reasonable' or not, it is in fact a different requirement than for the Canadian-born or for naturalized citizens. Once again: citizenship by descent is second class citizenship.
As for why in our case: health reasons and complications during pregnancy. I'd note that in addition, I think you massively overestimate how easy it is to 'just come back to Canada to give birth.' Although it can be done, the Canadian health care system is very much NOT designed for non-residents to return and give birth (leaving aside whether they can afford it or not). Leaving aside, of course, the question of whether it's even remotely practical.
This is an extremely poor lens on which to consider public policy - basically you are saying that any policy that remains in place is by definition a good one (or at least 'not bad'). Do you really want to make that argument? Because I'm going to be as gentle as I can and say I think that's, ummm, not smart.
You have posited an issue - 'dangers of unlimited cit by descent' - and fair enough (although I think massively exaggerated, that's just my opinion).
But still: factual matter, second class citizenship has been created.
There ARE other solutions: they could make the test one of residence or other ties to Canada, irregardless of type of citizenship. Many would think it harsh but I can easily argue it is a lot more logical and less arbitrary than saying "oh, just come back to Canada to give birth."
Why should I come back to Canada to have my children just so they have a more straight forward path to citizenship? In my eyes this is why birth tourism so bad here. They could simply look at the length of time I’ve lived in Canada, practically my whole life, and grant children citizenship on that. Meanwhile naturalized citizens who leave and contribute nothing to the tax base or society are coming back and their children would have citizenship before mine, Who I have to actually sponsor. It’s pretty frustrating. I understand why they did this, but I don’t understand why overlook the fact a citizen with Canadian parents has lived here their whole life?
Just a note, I see what you mean by this link, but it must apply to some other circumstance, and not the one I'm referring to (because I know of dozens of cases of this being done at embassies, including complicated cases). Not dismissing, just not an expert on the US legal construction - will require more research I don't have time for immediately.
See the link here:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1401&num=0&edition=prelim
"The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
...
a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: [... more stuff that broadens application to certain individuals serving abroad]"
So as I stated - anyone born to a US citizen-parent who has spent five years+ in the US as an adult (actually only two over age of fourteen is needed) is a citizen at birth, and 'naturalization' provisions cited do not apply. (I don't know what the provision you linked to are for, not the issue at hand).
This is fair, applies to all citizens (naturalized, by descent, or born in USA) equally, etc. It is not a very high bar (I believe by default would apply to all naturalized, with some very specific exceptions, because that's how long it takes to get citizenship), and hence actually not 'harsh' in most respects.
It would, however, limit somewhat extension of citizenship (by descent) FROM Canadian-born citizens. Not much, granted, but some - and actually be a response (of sorts) to so-called 'birth tourism' - in that anyone who is born in Canada and does not reside in Canada for long would not be able to pass on.
Hardly unfair by the standards proposed here (as far as i can understand them, which seem to always come back to the one single case of Lebanon, with not much else).
So yeah - we can easily eliminate having second class citizenship be a thing, while still protecting from whatever 'citizenship explosion' seems to be imagined as the great liability hanging over Canada from citizenship by descent - and evne address one outstanding (imagined anyway) issue, birth citizenship.
With having two dual US-Canadian kids - one kid born in the US and one in Canada -and having experienced the joys of both countries for getting citizenship by descent, I can assure all interested parties that it's equally painful though for different reasons.
(And yes it bothers me that one kiddo can't pass on citizenship in the same way her younger brother can if she has kids outside Canada, and I absolutely think that Canada should have some sort of a "can pass on by descent to the second generation if the parent meets x, y, z tests for time in Canada.")
And the naturalization thing for US citizens born abroad is incorrect as @armoured noted. There's no having to be in the US to get declared a citizen for children born abroad and granted citizenship by descent. You make an appointment via a horrific government website, go to the US consulate with your stack of many, many, documents, get yelled at by the secretary there for bringing one form that's listed on the website as being required ("We haven't done social security cards in years! Why would you bring this form?"), sign a gazillion things, discuss whether your proof of living in the US from birth to age 29 is really good enough, pay a hefty fee (for who knows what exactly because the amount doesn't add up according to the online fee table), then get told to leave and your kid's Consular Report of a Birth Abroad and US passport will appear in your mailbox in a few weeks. It's painful getting all the documentation of your physical presence in the US in order (the want to know exact dates of anytime you left the US) and if you live far from the consulate like we do it's a pain to get there. But... Our Canadian born kid had his US docs weeks before his Canadian passport came. On the other side, the Canadian process is a pretty easy to fill out form but it takes forever to get the citizenship certificate.