Citizenship by descent question/confusion

[vensak]

I'm sorry, but how does this refute my argument of 3(1)(l)? The two exceptions you colored in purple in your previous post state that 3(1)(l) would not apply if the person renounced his/her status (made a declaration of alienage), or had his/her status revoked by the government (for which can only happen under certain criminal charges that are listed in the 1914 Act). I countered with the actual text of the 1914 Act that prescribes the procedures for renouncing and revoking a person's British Subject status, neither of which are a result of acquiring a foreign nationality.

Again, I agree with you that Kayjulia's family lost their British Subject status if they acquired US citizenship, and from that date until 2015 Kayjulia and his/her mother could not be Canadian citizens because of that. But because of 3(1)(l) and 3(1)(p) in 2015, which pertains to those that lost their British Subject status because of prior legislation (i.e. acquisition of another nationality under paragraph 13) but not to those that renounced or had it revoked (only for those that were granted British nationality; acquisition of another nationality is not listed as an act warranting revocation for those considered natural-born), the door is now open for Kayjulia.


Perhaps you would like to retract your first statement that his/her mother was born before 1914?

Simply because she was a woman. In the text I have highlighted, being a woman, marrying foreign national and later on getting his citizenship automatically meant that she would loose her British citizenship. Even if she did not undergo the act of alienation.
Yes a discriminatory law but at that time common.
Second case would be if her parents - in this case father would renounce British citizenship, then she would automatically cease to be a British subject.

And in those 2 case if first would happen before 1949 and second would happen before she would be 19 years old, would automatically strip her of her citizenship (and she would not have to do a thing).
Yes there are ways how to retain it, however in this case she would have to be pro active.

So if any of those 2 events would happen she would have had no right for Canadian citizenship.

That is what I am trying to point out.

 

[hawk39]

In response to case 1: Upon reading the Nationality Act of 1940, sec. 310 (b)(2), it states that an 'alien married on or after May 24, 1934 to a US citizen is eligible for naturalization upon full and complete compliance of the requirements of naturalization laws, with the exception of having resided in the US for three years prior to filing for naturalization instead of the required five'. So this means that upon marrying an American citizen, Kayjulia's mother would not have been automatically naturalized, and that she can choose not to naturalize as an American and remain a British subject. Paragraph 10(2) of the 1914 Act says that 'if a British woman marries an alien, she would not lose her British status simply because of the marriage, unless she acquires her husband's nationality automatically because of marriage', which is not the case under the Nationality Act of 1940. So I think this makes case 1 invalid.

In response to case 2: If Kayjulia's mother was born in 1915, and moved to the US with her parents in 1944, that means she was at least 28 years old. I admit that I do not know if under British law and at 28 years old and still under the guardianship of her parents that she would still be considered a minor child back in 1944, but today, she would be considered an adult. So if she would also be considered an adult in 1944, paragraph 12(1) of the 1914 Act would not apply to her when she moved to the US with her parents, and therefore if her father loses his British status, she would not because she is no longer his minor child. So I think because of this, case 2 is also without merit.

But back to my argument for 3(1)(l). Let's say that Kayjulia's mother did lose her British status because of either she automatically acquired her husband's citizenship under paragraph 10(2), or because of her father acquired a foreign nationality while she was still a child under paragraph 12(1). Both are regarded as prior legislations that caused Kayjulia's mother to lose her British status; therefore, 3(1)(l) declares that Kayjulia's mother is now a Canadian citizen because she lost her British status before 1949, but not by renouncing it, or having it revoked (which again I will point out that it can only affect those that were granted British nationality, not natural-born British subjects like Kayjulia's mother), as listed under 3(2.3) as exceptions for which 3(1)(l) can not be applied.

 

[vensak]

In response to case 1: Upon reading the Nationality Act of 1940, sec. 310 (b)(2), it states that an 'alien married on or after May 24, 1934 to a US citizen is eligible for naturalization upon full and complete compliance of the requirements of naturalization laws, with the exception of having resided in the US for three years prior to filing for naturalization instead of the required five'. So this means that upon marrying an American citizen, Kayjulia's mother would not have been automatically naturalized, and that she can choose not to naturalize as an American and remain a British subject. Paragraph 10(2) of the 1914 Act says that 'if a British woman marries an alien, she would not lose her British status simply because of the marriage, unless she acquires her husband's nationality automatically because of marriage', which is not the case under the Nationality Act of 1940. So I think this makes case 1 invalid.

In response to case 2: If Kayjulia's mother was born in 1915, and moved to the US with her parents in 1944, that means she was at least 28 years old. I admit that I do not know if under British law and at 28 years old and still under the guardianship of her parents that she would still be considered a minor child back in 1944, but today, she would be considered an adult. So if she would also be considered an adult in 1944, paragraph 12(1) of the 1914 Act would not apply to her when she moved to the US with her parents, and therefore if her father loses his British status, she would not because she is no longer his minor child. So I think because of this, case 2 is also without merit.

But back to my argument for 3(1)(l). Let's say that Kayjulia's mother did lose her British status because of either she automatically acquired her husband's citizenship under paragraph 10(2), or because of her father acquired a foreign nationality while she was still a child under paragraph 12(1). Both are regarded as prior legislations that caused Kayjulia's mother to lose her British status; therefore, 3(1)(l) declares that Kayjulia's mother is now a Canadian citizen because she lost her British status before 1949, but not by renouncing it, or having it revoked (which again I will point out that it can only affect those that were granted British nationality, not natural-born British subjects like Kayjulia's mother), as listed under 3(2.3) as exceptions for which 3(1)(l) can not be applied.

Except that there is nowhere stated that you have to get the other citizenship immediately. Actually all it takes to file for USA citizenship under special conditions for foreigners that have married USA citizens.
That is the beauty of the British law, that it does not state the time.
So in simple words - you have married a Yankee? Yes. You did get his citizenship? Yes. So you are no longer British subject.
How I know this?
It so happens what in my country we have also law specifically dealing with a citizenship that you get because of a marriage.
It is like this - if you try to get a dual citizenship you will loose your own. But there is an exception. If you get a foreign citizenship because of a marriage (of course these days it is for both man and woman), you can keep your original citizenship.
So nothing more is written about it in the law itself. But there is an executive direction to that law stating:
That because of customs of different countries are different, officers dealing such cases should consider this clause to be fulfilled if you got the citizenship of your spouse during the time you were still married.
And in case of British law, there would be less explicit directions, so most likely you would have to go after previous cases, where judge would decide that a woman ceased to be a British citizen just because she got the citizenship of her husband while she was married to him.

So that could have easily been the case of his mother.

And when it comes to the second point. I do not know where do you have that info from, as no such thing was stated. The original poster only revealed that:
- his mother was born in 1915 in NFL. and so were parents of her mother born there (also in that case one might need to check history of that specific region and from when it belonged under GB)
- and a second difficult to read sentence - "She immigrated to the US with her parents in 1944 she had me". I do not know how you, but because how this sentence is written it does not properly inform if
She had immigrated to USA with her parents in 1944 or if her son was born in 1944. All that because that sentence is missing a DOT somewhere in the middle (or some words as well).
And because of that second option is possible (depending what it was suppose to mean).

And no. In the article I have highlighted is clearly stated:
had their British subject status revoked (or ceased to be a British subject as a result of the revocation of another person’s British subject status being revoked);

so in case her father getting an other citizenship, she would cease to be British because of that. And in case of the marriage as well.
So again in simple words. If she was not British in 1949 she could never acquire Canadian citizenship regardless if she was born there or not.

 

[alphazip]

1) As regards alexjw19, he did not acquire Canadian citizenship, because his mother was not a Canadian citizen when he was born. That is because her birth was not registered, as required before 1977. The 1977 Citizenship Act did not eliminate the registration requirement for those born abroad before 1977. So, the mother is a citizen, but the son is not.

2) Whether or not Kayjulia's parents ceased to be British subjects does not affect whether Kayjulia is a Canadian citizen, only the date on which it was acquired. If they ceased to be British subjects before 1949, she became a Canadian citizen in 2015; if they did not, she became one in 2009.

As hawk39 pointed out, the "Am I Canadian" tool (https://na1se.voxco.com/SE/56/amicanadiansuisjecanadien/?lang=en&tui=auto) makes it quite clear that if a person's parent was born in Newfoundland before April 1, 1949, that person is a citizen. There is no "unless (s)he ceased to be a British subject."

Vensak's posts refer to the situation as it existed before 2009/20015. Nowadays, virtually anyone born to a parent born in Canada (including Newfoundland) at any time, whether they did or did not lose British subject status, is a Canadian citizen. The only exception would be if the parent formally renounced his/her citizenship by completing a renunciation document in front of Canadian/Newfoundland authorities. Taking a foreign citizenship or marrying an alien does not constitute a formal renunciation.

 

[hawk39]

So in simple words - you have married a Yankee? Yes. You did get his citizenship? Yes. So you are no longer British subject.

Wrong. Did you read the Nationality Act of 1940? It says if an alien marries an American citizen after May 24, 1934, the alien becomes eligible for US citizenship after residing in the US for three years and fulfilling any other conditions to make oneself eligible. So 'no', you did not get his citizenship when you marry him, you became eligible for it after three years of being married to him and living in the US. You would remain a British subject for at least another three years; after three years you can choose to then apply for citizenship or not. US citizenship is not forced upon you, even if you marry an American. Paragraph 10(2) of the 1914 Act says the same thing: 'a woman that marries an alien does not cease to be a British subject through the marriage, unless her husband's nationality is forced upon her under her husband's nationality law'. Therefore, since the US does not force the wife to become American when she marries (and she has to wait at least three years and live in the US anyway), the wife remains British until then, or she remains British if she does not take US citizenship.

And when it comes to the second point. I do not know where do you have that info from, as no such thing was stated. The original poster only revealed that:
- his mother was born in 1915 in NFL. and so were parents of her mother born there (also in that case one might need to check history of that specific region and from when it belonged under GB)
- and a second difficult to read sentence - "She immigrated to the US with her parents in 1944 she had me".
.

It's simple math. 1944 minus 1915 equals 29 if she had moved after her birthday; otherwise she would be 28. So she would be an adult and not subjected under her father's loss.

And no. In the article I have highlighted is clearly stated:
had their British subject status revoked (or ceased to be a British subject as a result of the revocation of another person’s British subject status being revoked);

so in case her father getting an other citizenship, she would cease to be British because of that.

One more time, revocation only applies those that were granted a British certificate of nationality, not to a natural-born British subject. Her father was born in Newfoundland (yes, it was claimed as British colony in 1583, and under total British control with the Treaty of Utrecht after 1713), so as a natural-born British subject, as defined as under paragraph 1(1)(a) of the 1914 Act, her father is not subjected to revocation, even if he had committed any of the offenses listed under paragraph 7 of the 1914 Act.

 

[hawk39]

Vensak's posts refer to the situation as it existed before 2009/20015. Nowadays, virtually anyone born to a parent born in Canada (including Newfoundland) at any time, whether they did or did not lose British subject status, is a Canadian citizen. The only exception would be if the parent formally renounced his/her citizenship by completing a renunciation document in front of Canadian/Newfoundland authorities. Taking a foreign citizenship or marrying an alien does not constitute a formal renunciation.

Exactly! This is what I've been trying to explain.

 

[alphazip]

Here is information on the loss of British subject status by women who married citizens of other countries:

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/canadian-citizenship/acquisition-loss/loss-canadian-british-subject-status-acquisition-restoration-canadian.html?a=loss-british-status&_ga=2.216399702.1792553703.1531599190-1848625821.1495172969#loss-british-status

Note that between 1932 and 1946, women who married U.S. citizens did not lose British subject status. And, of course, from 1947 to the present, they would not lose Canadian citizenship.

However, before 1932, a British subject woman who married a U.S. citizen man would have been considered an alien.

While the loss of British subject status before 1947 (1949 in Newfoundland) was an impediment to certain people acquiring Canadian citizenship before 2015, the changes to the Citizenship Act eliminated that issue for those persons born in Canada (including Newfoundland) and their children in the first generation born abroad.

 

[alphazip]

I wrote: "However, before 1932, a British subject woman who married a U.S. citizen man would have been considered an alien."

Hawk39 asked me to look at section 10(2) of the 1914 Act. After doing so, I agree with him that a British subject woman would not have lost British subject status by marrying a U.S. citizen man before 1932. So, the Canadian citizenship manual to which I provided a link is misleading on that point.