Son of Russian spies regains Canadian citizenship

[Natan]

The article says all of them were naturalized American citizens. I wonder what happened to the kids' American citizenship. Were they stripped of it?

There are two ways the USA could strip them of their citizenship, that I'm aware of:

1. The Department of State could move to revoke their citizenship and/or invalidate their naturalization as fraudulent. If the children chose to redress this decision in the courts, the U.S. Government would certainly not win, as the children, themselves, did not commit fraud to obtain citizenship, nor have they, themselves, committed treason, nor an expatriating act, nor a potentially expatriating act with the intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship, nor did they fight against U.S. troops on a battlefield -- these are the only legal grounds for revocation of citizenship. Of course, if they didn't fight this in the courts, or if they failed to see the court cases through to a final verdict (it could cost over $250,000 and take 20 years for the courts to reach a final verdict), they would have lost their citizenship. The U.S. Government relies on most citizens not having the funds, competent legal counsel, and adequate knowledge of their legal remedies to successfully pursue a tort action.

2. Border guards at a port of entry could have seized their citizenship documents and threatened them with decades in prison if they didn't immediately sign documents renouncing their U.S. citizenship as obtained fraudulently and "voluntarily" gift their citizenship documents to CBP. (This is reported to have happened thousands of times, especially at Mexican border crossings.)

 

[dpenabill]

I wonder what happened to the kids' American citizenship.

There are two ways the USA could strip them of their citizenship

There is a definitive answer. It is stated in the Federal Court decision I cited and linked above. See http://canlii.ca/t/gkr9s and paragraph 6 in particular.

Sure, I could just state what that says the American government did. But if something is worth posting about it should be worth at least following a link to access and consider real information about it.

My view is, as he was born in Canada, he is a Canadian citizen, and Government should not be trying to strip him of that citizenship.

As I previously noted, the Canadian case is not a revocation of citizenship case. It is not a case in which an individual was stripped of his Canadian citizenship. The Citizenship Registrar cancelled a certificate of citizenship which, the Registrar determined, was issued in error. The Registrar determined that Alexander Vavilov never was a Canadian citizen. NOT that citizenship was to be taken away.

Whether or not the Registrar correctly interpreted and applied the law is one of the key issues raised (there are other issues).

That issue is whether or not Alexander Vavilov is a citizen based on his birth in Canada, as provided in Subsection 3(1)(a) in the Citizenship Act, or is not a citizen pursuant to an exception prescribed in Subsection 3(2)(a) in the Citizenship Act. Despite the remarkably dramatic circumstances in which the case arises, it is actually a rather dry if not dull question of statutory interpretation.

There are undoubtedly a variety of opinions about a case like this. But those opinions tend to be rife if not polluted with views about what the law should be more than trying to understand what the law is and how it is applied, or what the outcome should be regardless of what the law is.

That noted, there are also various opinions about how the applicable statute should be interpreted and applied to facts like those in this case. Hence the difference between the 2015 Federal Court decision by Justice Bell versus the recent decision by the Federal Court of Appeals.

Although we can read the statutory provision itself (I quoted and linked it in my prior post), without seeing the reasoning employed by the Federal Court of Appeals, however, any effort to analyze whether Justice Bell was more right, or the Federal Court of Appeals has it right, or whether the government should pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court, is wild speculation. It is a question for which what-the-law-should-be is totally irrelevant. It is merely a question as to what the law, as it is, actually means, which will determine how it should be applied in these circumstances.

 

[links18]

It is a sad commentary that the only absolute certainty a person born in Canada has of their citizenship status is when they are told by IRCC that they are NOT citizens. Otherwise, their status is "provisional", because Government affirmations of citizenship provide no absolute certainty of one's status (Government may always later determine that person is not, and never was, a citizen). Canada's citizenship laws are a laughing stock.

Shoot, try British citizenship laws. Can be stripped pretty much at the discretion of the home secretary.

 

[links18]

That noted, there are also various opinions about how the applicable statute should be interpreted and applied to facts like those in this case. Hence the difference between the 2015 Federal Court decision by Justice Bell versus the recent decision by the Federal Court of Appeals.

.

It has come up on this forum several times where the child of a US serviceman stationed in Canada born in Canada inquires about their Canadian citizenship status and they are almost always said to be Canadian, despite their parent being an employee of a foreign government.

Let's face it: Being Russian is not going to endear anyone to you in positions of authority in Western Countries right now (except maybe POTUS ), such that you might not get the benefit of the most favorable reading on the law on the first try.

 

[itsmyid]

My intention wasn't really anything political, it is the irony that someone born in Canada and left at age of 1, apparently unable to speak or think with any 'Canadian value', still claims to feel like a Canadian more than anything else - so 4 years in France, and 10? years in the US, during which he actually learned to speak and went to school and interacted with local people/communities, basically, growing up in those cultures, did not make him feel more French or American than that one year in Canada during which all he could do was eat/sleep/poop? That is just too much a stretch for me to be convinced.

Yes, it is the law that makes him eligible for citizenship, but anything other than that, such as those overdramatic emotional claims, are just pure BS

 

[links18]

My intention wasn't really anything political, it is the irony that someone born in Canada and left at age of 1, apparently unable to speak or think with any 'Canadian value', still claims to feel like a Canadian more than anything else - so 4 years in France, and 10? years in the US, during which he actually learned to speak and went to school and interacted with local people/communities, basically, growing up in those cultures, did not make him feel more French or American than that one year in Canada during which all he could do was eat/sleep/poop? That is just too much a stretch for me to be convinced.

Yes, it is the law that makes him eligible for citizenship, but anything other than that, such as those overdramatic emotional claims, are just pure BS

I know grown adults who left the country of their birth at 1 or 2 years old and who still call it "home." As in: "This summer I am taking a trip back 'home.'" That does irk me a little bit, I guess. They have been here how long and it is still not home? Whatever, who am I to judge these things?

 

[Natan]

I know grown adults who left the country of their birth at 1 or 2 years old and who still call it "home." As in: "This summer I am taking a trip back 'home.'" That does irk me a little bit, I guess. They have been here how long and it is still not home? Whatever, who am I to judge these things?

I was born a dual citizen. The country I identify with as "home", whose language I speak with a heavy accent (even though it is my first language), is a country I have spent very little time in. Yet, this is the country I self-identify with, it's the country I call home, even though I wasn't even born there. When I'm "back home", even when speaking with an accent, every stranger recognizes me as a countryman, albeit one who's been abroad for long periods of time.

My nieces identify with my sister-in-law's homeland, even though they are not citizens, speak the language with a heavy accent, and have never been there. It is the only country they consider home -- certainly not the country of their birth and the one they grew up in.

For me, living in the country of my birth is rather like coming into a movie in the middle and wondering what happened before I arrived. My nieces feel the same way. None of us have been acculturated into the culture of the country in which we were born -- we feel like outsiders, yet not quite foreigners.

Since I have become a Canadian, I must admit, I feel a certain sense of ownership in Canada, and it feels like home. But when I say I am going "back home" or that I'm returning to my "homeland", it is not Canada that I mean. I love Canada and I'm happy to live here. Being Canadian is a part of my self-identity now, but it will never be at the core of who I am -- that place is reserved for my "homeland".

It is easy for me to understand how this fellow can feel like a Canadian and self-identify as one, especially because he did not grow up here. My experience, and that of my nieces, gives me particular insight in how and why this could occur. As far as I'm concerned, his is a valid statement and should be accepted as true and meaningful.

 

[links18]

I was born a dual citizen. The country I identify with as "home", whose language I speak with a heavy accent (even though it is my first language), is a country I have spent very little time in. Yet, this is the country I self-identify with, it's the country I call home, even though I wasn't even born there. When I'm "back home", even when speaking with an accent, every stranger recognizes me as a countryman, albeit one who's been abroad for long periods of time.

My nieces identify with my sister-in-law's homeland, even though they are not citizens, speak the language with a heavy accent, and have never been there. It is the only country they consider home -- certainly not the country of their birth and the one they grew up in.

For me, living in the country of my birth is rather like coming into a movie in the middle and wondering what happened before I arrived. My nieces feel the same way. None of us have been acculturated into the culture of the country in which we were born -- we feel like outsiders, yet not quite foreigners.

Since I have become a Canadian, I must admit, I feel a certain sense of ownership in Canada, and it feels like home. But when I say I am going "back home" or that I'm returning to my "homeland", it is not Canada that I mean. I love Canada and I'm happy to live here. Being Canadian is a part of my self-identity now, but it will never be at the core of who I am -- that place is reserved for my "homeland".

It is easy for me to understand how this fellow can feel like a Canadian and self-identify as one, especially because he did not grow up here. My experience, and that of my nieces, gives me particular insight in how and why this could occur. As far as I'm concerned, his is a valid statement and should be accepted as true and meaningful.

My aunt was not born in the country of my grandparents' (her parents') birth and citizenship. She was born in and grew up in a totally different country where my grandparents had moved prior to her birth, but she acquired her parents' citizenship "by descent." Subsequently, she was stripped of the citizenship of her country of birth following political upheaval and returned to her parents' country of birth for a short period of time--no more than six months--before moving on to another country where she has lived for over fifty years. Still, she refers to her parents' country of birth as "home." This has always struck me as a little strange, as it seems like "home" in only a kind of mythical way. That same country is the country of my own mothers' birth and I am also its citizen by descent, but it seems like mostly a foreign land to me as I did not grow up there, although I have visited and probably spent more time there then my aunt has. I guess there is no formula for this....

 

[Natan]

There is a definitive answer. It is stated in the Federal Court decision I cited and linked above. See http://canlii.ca/t/gkr9s and paragraph 6 in particular.

Sure, I could just state what that says the American government did. But if something is worth posting about it should be worth at least following a link to access and consider real information about it.

I did read it, which is why I went into such detail about the way in which he lost his U.S. citizenship (#1 above), as opposed to the other way (#2 above), which I gave fairly short shrift. (For the record, I make it a point to read the links you provide before commenting on your statements -- to do otherwise would be foolish indeed.)

As I previously noted, the Canadian case is not a revocation of citizenship case. It is not a case in which an individual was stripped of his Canadian citizenship. The Citizenship Registrar cancelled a certificate of citizenship which, the Registrar determined, was issued in error. The Registrar determined that Alexander Vavilov never was a Canadian citizen. NOT that citizenship was to be taken away.

Whether or not the Registrar correctly interpreted and applied the law is one of the key issues raised (there are other issues).

That issue is whether or not Alexander Vavilov is a citizen based on his birth in Canada, as provided in Subsection 3(1)(a) in the Citizenship Act, or is not a citizen pursuant to an exception prescribed in Subsection 3(2)(a) in the Citizenship Act. Despite the remarkably dramatic circumstances in which the case arises, it is actually a rather dry if not dull question of statutory interpretation.

There are undoubtedly a variety of opinions about a case like this. But those opinions tend to be rife if not polluted with views about what the law should be more than trying to understand what the law is and how it is applied, or what the outcome should be regardless of what the law is.

That noted, there are also various opinions about how the applicable statute should be interpreted and applied to facts like those in this case. Hence the difference between the 2015 Federal Court decision by Justice Bell versus the recent decision by the Federal Court of Appeals.

Although we can read the statutory provision itself (I quoted and linked it in my prior post), without seeing the reasoning employed by the Federal Court of Appeals, however, any effort to analyze whether Justice Bell was more right, or the Federal Court of Appeals has it right, or whether the government should pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court, is wild speculation. It is a question for which what-the-law-should-be is totally irrelevant. It is merely a question as to what the law, as it is, actually means, which will determine how it should be applied in these circumstances.

As usual, your analysis of the issues at hand is outstanding. You clearly establish the legal questions at hand and legal procedures followed by the Citizenship Registrar.

But, from Alexander Vavilov's perspective, his citizenship was taken away, regardless of the procedural niceties and their precise meaning in law, he was effectively stripped of his Canadian citizenship. Having, myself, personal experience of being uncitizened by a government, let me assure you that all the procedural bureaucratize and Orwellian doublespeak cannot hide the fact that where once a citizen, now no more!

Admittedly, my comments were more about my outrage at the tangled mess Canadian citizenship law has become, than about Mr. Vavilov's case, but that's one of my particular ax's, as it were.

 

[itsmyid]

My aunt was not born in the country of my grandparents' (her parents') birth and citizenship. She was born in and grew up in a totally different country where my grandparents had moved prior to her birth, but she acquired her parents' citizenship "by descent." Subsequently, she was stripped of the citizenship of her country of birth following political upheaval and returned to her parents' country of birth for a short period of time--no more than six months--before moving on to another country where she has lived for over fifty years. Still, she refers to her parents' country of birth as "home." This has always struck me as a little strange, as it seems like "home" in only a kind of mythical way. That same country is the country of my own mothers' birth and I am also its citizen by descent, but it seems like mostly a foreign land to me as I did not grow up there, although I have visited and probably spent more time there then my aunt has. I guess there is no formula for this....

That's all 'ordinary people' cases, in the case of this Russian spy couple, they assumed the Canadian identity of some dead baby from Montreal, the whole thing was a lie from the beginning... I would be much less surprised if the boy identified himself as Russian (heck, even his last name was changed back to Russian), and it doesn't seem like he was suffering from anything after moving back to Russia, he may even be the cool kid in school because his parents were spies

This actually reminds me of the Monsef case, who claims her mother never told her she was born in a different country but in order to get refugee status lied about it, until very recently... yeah I suppose it could all be true, maybe they never kept any old photos, they don't have any relatives/family members that accidentally slipped some old stories, maybe they never kept any documents that would lead to any suspicion... in theory, it is all possible... And this couple, two Russian spies, assuming the identities of dead Canadians, really brought up their children as true Canadians all those years while they were living in France and US, feeding them poutine and maple syrup, probably even visit Tim Hortons from time to time if they lived in Michigan... I guess we will never know...

 

[Natan]

My aunt was not born in the country of my grandparents' (her parents') birth and citizenship. She was born in and grew up in a totally different country where my grandparents had moved prior to her birth, but she acquired her parents' citizenship "by descent." Subsequently, she was stripped of the citizenship of her country of birth following political upheaval and returned to her parents' country of birth for a short period of time--no more than six months--before moving on to another country where she has lived for over fifty years. Still, she refers to her parents' country of birth as "home." This has always struck me as a little strange, as it seems like "home" in only a kind of mythical way. That same country is the country of my own mothers' birth and I am also its citizen by descent, but it seems like mostly a foreign land to me as I did not grow up there, although I have visited and probably spent more time there then my aunt has. I guess there is no formula for this....

You were likely acculturated in the country of your birth from a very early age and never really acculturated into the culture of your other citizenship; while the reverse occurred to your aunt. Your aunt may also have internalized stories about the "old country" as integral to her self-identity; while you internalized those stories more like fairy tales.

For me, I was constantly reminded in my youth not to "forget who you are" and to remember "you're not one of them, don't act like them" and "if you ever forget who you are, one of them will remind you". With few exceptions, television was strictly forbidden for fear it might impart what my parents perceived to be an inferior culture. My family made sure my home education was adequate to overcome the taint of a public school education, until I was old enough to be sent to boarding schools for a "proper" education. This means, among other things, that my take on historical, political and economic events was quite divergent from everyone else's -- which may have been noticed by some of you!

 

[Natan]

That's all 'ordinary people' cases, in the case of this Russian spy couple, they assumed the Canadian identity of some dead baby from Montreal, the whole thing was a lie from the beginning... I would be much less surprised if the boy identified himself as Russian (heck, even his last name was changed back to Russian), and it doesn't seem like he was suffering from anything after moving back to Russia, he may even be the cool kid in school because his parents were spies

Having had his Canadian citizenship taken away may have had quite a traumatic effect on his psyche! If he truly self-identifies as a Canadian, having had his citizenship rendered null and void would have quite a negative psychological impact and might shred his sense of self-identity. He does not have to live in Canada, or even want to live in Canada, for this action to inflict excessive psychological damage. One's lack of ability to properly put themselves in Mr. Vavilov's shoes is no reason to underestimate the value Canadian citizenship holds for him, possibly on many levels, including the psychological.

This actually reminds me of the Monsef case, who claims her mother never told her she was born in a different country but in order to get refugee status lied about it, until very recently... yeah I suppose it could all be true, maybe they never kept any old photos, they don't have any relatives/family members that accidentally slipped some old stories, maybe they never kept any documents that would lead to any suspicion... in theory, it is all possible... And this couple, two Russian spies, assuming the identities of dead Canadians, really brought up their children as true Canadians all those years while they were living in France and US, feeding them poutine and maple syrup, probably even visit Tim Hortons from time to time if they lived in Michigan... I guess we will never know...

I have many old photos from the "old country". Except that I recognize particular houses and backyards, they would look no different from pictures taken in any other country. Had I no memory of the "old country", I could not tell you what country the pictures were taken in. It's doubtful the Monsef's could look at old family pictures and tell you what country they were taken in (unless they had foreknowledge).

As for a person's feelings and sense of self-identity, it's almost always best to take a person at their word. It is enough for me to know that he has stated that he self-identifies as a Canadian. That's all it takes to establish that as a fact in my mind.

 

[itsmyid]

Having had his Canadian citizenship taken away may have had quite a traumatic effect on his psyche! If he truly self-identifies as a Canadian, having had his citizenship rendered null and void would have quite a negative psychological impact and might shred his sense of self-identity. He does not have to live in Canada, or even want to live in Canada, for this action to inflict excessive psychological damage. One's lack of ability to properly put themselves in Mr. Vavilov's shoes is no reason to underestimate the value Canadian citizenship holds for him, possibly on many levels, including the psychological.



I have many old photos from the "old country". Except that I recognize particular houses and backyards, they would look no different from pictures taken in any other country. Had I no memory of the "old country", I could not tell you what country the pictures were taken in. It's doubtful the Monsef's could look at old family pictures and tell you what country they were taken in (unless they had foreknowledge).

As for a person's feelings and sense of self-identity, it's almost always best to take a person at their word. It is enough for me to know that he has stated that he self-identifies as a Canadian. That's all it takes to establish that as a fact in my mind.

Well, good to know that it is enough for you and all it takes to establish a fact .... many little girls also identify themselves as princess, but that usually doesn't hold true...

 

[Natan]

Well, good to know that it is enough for you and all it takes to establish a fact .... many little girls also identify themselves as princess, but that usually doesn't hold true...

A more apt example would be "some, who were born as girls, identify as boys" -- I would take their statements at face value and identify them as boys. In such cases, their statements would be all the "fact" I need.

 

[links18]

A more apt example would be "some, who were born as girls, identify as boys" -- I would take their statements at face value and identify them as boys. In such cases, their statements would be all the "fact" I need.

How about "some who were born as white, identify as black"? That didn't work out so well for Rachel Dolezal!