It should affect those born before 1977 as well, but keep in mind that before 1977, there was a pathway for citizenship by descent for any generation with a married Canadian father by registering the child's birth with the Canadian embassy, then there was the delayed registration period from 1977 until 2004 and the special grant of citizenship from 1977 to 2009. If the born-abroad parent did not know about these opportunities for their children or sponsored their children to Canada before the judge's ruling, it's a strong possibility they never intended to reside and establish their 3-year connection to be able to benefit from the ruling now, and any complaint now would solely be based on ignorance of the previous laws when the opportunities were there. To be fair, I did say "mostly, if not all" rather than 'only'.
Second Generation Canadian?
- Thread starter subzer0
- Start date
Your wife can sponsor your child for PR and immediately file for citizenship under 5(2) as a naturalized citizen; PR children do not have to meet the 1095-day residency obligation as long as one parent is Canadian. The only obstacle is for your wife to prove that she intends to move to Canada to be able to sponsor your child.
You are confusing rules, I think.
There is no residency obligation for your son to be sponsored by his mother for PR. The hard part is that she would need to show intent to move to Canada and reside here once his PR is approved. Given she has never lived in Canada, she would need very strong evidence to show this. That's what would be a challenge for sponsoring for PR (not residency requirement).
There would be a very clear and easy path to PR for your son (assuming he is under 22) if you were moving to Canada.
Ah, I think we had a genuine misunderstanding: I interpreted* this such that parents born abroad before 1977 are also affected when their children (born after 1977) cannot take on citizenship by birth.
I now see you meant this only in terms of the limitation of citizenship by descent being able to directly acquire citizenship via their parents, i.e. that only those who can't receive citizenship by descent are 'affected.'
*I'd argue that interpretation is pretty obvious, as it seems in large part what the Supreme Court based its decision on, but I see what you literally meant by your text. Don't mean to turn a semantic distinction into a thing, jsut how I read it.
I think this approach is a bit narrow minded. Many of the 'Lost Canadians' were under the assumption that they had citizenship by virtue of having a parent born in Canada. The 1947 Act featured antiquated laws regarding domicile requirements, registering births in extremely limited time-frames, and laws which freely discriminated on the basis of a person's sex and marital status. The Canadian governmen essentially acknowledged the act's discriminatory practices by restoring citizenship to virtually every Canadian who lost it due to the former act's provisions.
To say someone shouldn't benefit from the new ruling because they didn't follow antiquated laws from the 1940's is quite contradictory. Many Canadians lost (or never had, to begin with) citizenship for years, only to have it restored with the 2009 or 2015 provisions. How could these people be expected to prove three years' residency when they had no legal status in Canada until the past decade? Or sponsor their child when they had no status themselves?
I agree in principe with the 3-year residency requirement, with the stipulation that it only be applicable for those born after 2009. I feel it's necessary for the Canadian government to recognize the citizenship of second generation born abroad children for families whose citizenship was restored in 2009/2015. These people should be able to claim citizenship by descent without any parental residency requirements. This is the only fair way for the Canadian government to correct its past legislative wrong-doings, as the timeframe between their citizenship restoration and the residency requirement is too short to realistically be justified.
Last edited:
I didn't know how to phrase it, but very well said about the last paragraph. Canada while trying to "right their wrongs" (and yes I put that in quotation marks satirically) knew they were leaving people out and still creating different classes of descendants who were or weren't allowed citizenship. I always thought if the previous acts were one generation only that's one thing. However with that being said there's still second generation being left out due to circumstances in their family that they had absolutely no control over.
While they are trying to figure out a connection test for those born after 2009, if something isn't rectified for those born before 2009, a charter challenge wouldn't surprise me, perhaps based on not being able to get citizenship by descent because their parents didn't get it retroactive until 2009 or 2015.
The fact Canada was even thinking about changes with Bill s 245 before the court case was decided is an admission that they knew something was wrong and changes needed to be made.
I agree with a connection test for those born after 2009, but second generation born before 2009 but related to those whose parents and grandparents got their citizenship retroactive to birth,(regardless of if their parents and grandparents are alive or not and if they are deceased when they became deceased shouldn't matter)should get theirs retroactive to birth as well without the need for said connection test.
What Canada really did in 1977 when dual citizenship wasn't retroactive was sent a message of wait. I was born in Canada or am the child or grandchild of someone born in Canada(depending on that person's situation) and you're telling me I don't qualify for citizenship when they are very overt about letting people know that dual citizenship is allowed then why come back. And then as a result of that future generations are born abroad instead of possibly being born in Canada and are penalized for being related to people who left Canada pre dual citizenship.
Last edited:
As US citizens they can easily visit Canada so that’s not an issue. If they want to move to Canada they can apply for PR like everyone else. Having extended family in Canada doesn’t justify why your children deserve citizenship. Your wife and children have lived their whole lives in the US so essentially living as US citizens. If you and your wife wanted to permanently move to Canada with your children it would be different but we’re talking about the ability of your children to move or study in to Canada. Passing citizenship down through generations without having established any permanent ties to Canada (3 years is nothing) creates such a liability for Canada.
That would seem to be the point.
Well we can argue whether it's actually difficult, but I could agree that it's not trivial.
Three years total time in Canada over ... well, let's say your spouse is 25 years old (just for sake of some calcs), that would mean spending only a month and a half each year, or basically doing an undergraduate degree in Canada. Even that is not that much in terms of 'substantial ties.'
"Probably should account for something" - well, what would account for something is the boy's mother moving to Canada and sponsoring.
But he (and you) do have a 'clear path.' You have over 20 years remaining to do so (assuming current sponsorship rules don't change, of which there's no indication they will with respect to spousal/dependent child sponsorship). That's a lot of flexibility and time to make a choice, if it's important to him or his mother. (The 'residence requirement' for the mother would involve only moving to Canada,but let's not go down that road at this point).
That's a very clear path, and unaffected by the expected changes.
Just for background: I got caught up in this as was born abroad (sort of by accident) and had no options apart from as above, despite having no foreign family ties whatsoever and residing in Canada from < one year old to age 30. (My child had no status in Canada until I sponsored her and we returned, where as a PR / minor child of a citizen she got a grant of citizenship fairly quickly).
I don't say this to say other specific cases are worthy or unworthy (esp as applies to your spouse). But I think most people would agree that IF you're going to draw the line somewhere (some object entirely to the concept), "extent of ties" is a not-crazy basis, and that wherever you draw the line, some are going to believe the line has been drawn just where it excludes them and is therefore unfair (although that doesn't logically follow).
BTW on the fairness matter: what I've mentioned here many times is that the USA has come down hard on the fairness aspect in that born-in-USA does NOT confer automatic right to pass on citizenship. The 'ties to USA' test applies to (parents of) ALL children born abroad - five years minimum for children born to one US-citizen parent, at least two of which after the age of 14.* In this context, the US does NOT discriminate between its citizens based solely on where they were born**, but only on the extent to which they have physical residency ties to USA.
If there's a basis to challenge the as-amended law (when it happens, which we still haven't seen) on the basis of fairness, it's going to be if the residency requirement ONLY applies to Canadians born abroad, because - no matter what people like to say - that actually DOES create a second class of citizenship. In other words, if they're going to apply a physical presence test for parents to pass on citizenship, there's no FAIR basis to apply it only to citizens born abroad. [Note I don't think government will do this - it will be unpopular and a pain in the arse to administer, but they do potentially leave themselves open to a challenge on basis of fairness.]
*I'm simplifying a wee bit as I don't fully understand the rules and there was one category for which less but they've changed it. Right now I think there's only one category that doesn't require five years, which is a child born of two US citizens - but they still require one of them to have had some physical presence. Also the USA considers some thigns like military service abroad as equivalent to US residence, but that doesn't surprise anyone.
**Note the US constitution still discriminates against naturalized citizens, because they can't qualify to be 'natural born citizens' (which I understand current jurisprudence considers those born abroad but who get citizenship from their parents to be). But discrimination that it's in the constitution is, by definition, constitutional.
Curious on what people think will happen in regards to changes that are going to be made. I've been reading about a connection test which I can understand for those born after the original date of the first generation cutoff.
However what about those who still don't have citizenship due to the age 28 rule, and what about second generation whose parents and grandparents only in 2009 and 2015 retroactively qualified for citizenship. Canada while recently trying to correct their past discriminatory measures have still left people out.
However what about those who still don't have citizenship due to the age 28 rule, and what about second generation whose parents and grandparents only in 2009 and 2015 retroactively qualified for citizenship. Canada while recently trying to correct their past discriminatory measures have still left people out.
Globe coverage: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-prepares-bill-to-reinstate-citizenship-rights-of-lost-canadians/
Paywalled, so I warn that there's not much concrete in here: basically that the feds are preparing their own bill because the private member's bill (by a conservative member) is held up in committee and they don't believe it will get anywhere (despite the Liberals supporting it) - because (the article alleges) conservatives don't want it to go forward.
Unfortunately I think the underlying truth is pretty simple: pure politics. The Cs (and I'd guess the NDP as well) believe that whatever the substance of the bill is, they want to force the Liberals to 'own it' - that way they can criticize it during an election period. Either they think it will be unpopular, or they can make it unpopular - and most of all with core Conservative voters and swing voters. Making the legislation 'Liberal' means they can both fire at will and at the same time be certain it'll pass, i.e. they're going to vote against it while supporting on substance. (They know the NDP will support in the end)
This is going to sound like I'm being partisan - I'm not, or I don't think I am. I think this is what political parties do - albeit some more than others. There's no margin for the Conservatives in supporting legislation whose goals they fully support, when they can let someone else take the hit, and claim they would've been 'tougher' or somesuch. I doubt any competent political leader would - in similar tactical circumstances - do much different.
The difference here is going to be what clothes they dress themselves in when they make an issue of it, and how much they emphasize it. A good faith party would not emphasize it that much, keepign their criticism technical. Demagogues gonna demagogue. We'll see which it is.
Paywalled, so I warn that there's not much concrete in here: basically that the feds are preparing their own bill because the private member's bill (by a conservative member) is held up in committee and they don't believe it will get anywhere (despite the Liberals supporting it) - because (the article alleges) conservatives don't want it to go forward.
Unfortunately I think the underlying truth is pretty simple: pure politics. The Cs (and I'd guess the NDP as well) believe that whatever the substance of the bill is, they want to force the Liberals to 'own it' - that way they can criticize it during an election period. Either they think it will be unpopular, or they can make it unpopular - and most of all with core Conservative voters and swing voters. Making the legislation 'Liberal' means they can both fire at will and at the same time be certain it'll pass, i.e. they're going to vote against it while supporting on substance. (They know the NDP will support in the end)
This is going to sound like I'm being partisan - I'm not, or I don't think I am. I think this is what political parties do - albeit some more than others. There's no margin for the Conservatives in supporting legislation whose goals they fully support, when they can let someone else take the hit, and claim they would've been 'tougher' or somesuch. I doubt any competent political leader would - in similar tactical circumstances - do much different.
The difference here is going to be what clothes they dress themselves in when they make an issue of it, and how much they emphasize it. A good faith party would not emphasize it that much, keepign their criticism technical. Demagogues gonna demagogue. We'll see which it is.
More of a question but what do you think will end to happening
1. For those born after 2009
2. For those born before 2009, had the opportunity to apply (age 28 rule) and got refused or just simply didn't apply either intentionally or honestly didn't know
3. For those born before 2009 but didn't have the opportunity to qualify for citizenship, because of the 1977 act not applying retroactively for their parents and grandparents.
While it's easy to read and hear about the connection test for those born after 2009, we know they're people born before 2009 who if they don't get a chance for citizenship by descent that we might see a charter challenge I don't know on what grounds (perhaps discrimination based on their date of birth and not being allowed to claim, because of their parents and grandparents getting it retroactively in 2009 or 2015 which at the same time disqualified those second generation from applying).
Last edited:
By all accounts they will apply a 'ties to Canada' test as discussed here before and as in the conservative member's bill. I've no reason to think otherwise.
I have not heard of any indication that there is a move afoot to do something that would change the approach. Given the timeframe (short) remaining before they need legislation in place due to the court ruling, I wouldn't expect anything targetted at these groups - except to extent that the rules above (substantial ties i.e. residence in Canada for 1095 days or something similar) might apply to some in those groups as well.
There's not much sense guessing about a discrimination challenge's likelihood of success if no-one has mounted one. Is there one? Even initial stages?
Not an expert, just my speculation - and I don't know much about the issues facing the groups you referred to above.
I think there is an overgeneralized misbelief of who is officially considered a "Lost Canadian". S-245 was originally written to address the second-generation retention requirement but halted to include the proposed changes being discussed now. Within Parliament's website are three links under the 'About' tab to reports that the government references to how they are interpreting on who is considered a "Lost Canadian" that benefitted from the 2009 and 2015 changes. I'm not going to go into detail, so please read those reports, but to summarize, the majority of "Lost Canadians" (3 out of the 4 recognized groups) were people that previously had citizenship but unknowingly lost it, and only by trying to assert it for benefits did they find out they weren't citizens; they were living in Canada without status. The last group described were those first-generation born abroad born before 1977 that did not received citizenship by failing to register their birth or were born in an American border town with a hospital and immediately brought to Canada. The reports also state that the government did not want to extend automatic citizenship for the second generation, assumedly since it was written in these reports pertaining to "Lost Canadians". Given that those first-generation "Lost Canadians" are already middle-age or older, it can be assumed that they and their children have already established their current lives and families and are highly unlikely to uproot themselves and move to Canada now.
I also agree with @armoured in his/her previous post:
I also agree with @armoured in his/her previous post:
^^What they said. @hawk39 has far better understanding of these other types of citizenship-by-descent issues. I've mostly only followed insofar as they related to those born after 2009 (i.e. my children).
As for the legislation discussed in the article (eg a federal government draft distinct/separate from the one in committee) - my guess is that if the govt is doing a quick, limited amendment to deal with the court decision-deadline pending soon, it's going to be even more narrow, and limited as much as possible just to that group of born-abroads (since 2009 and going forward).
Back on the politics: it occurs to me the govt may have a competing draft to show to encourage the members to move the existing draft in committee along (i.e. 'if you want the things you want, get this done or we'll do the version that doesn't have the stuff you want'). A bit of the carrot and a bit of the stick. Who knows though.