Are my kids Canadian?

[links18]

Right, but in this case, I returned to Canada with my mother to live. I dont see why Canada wouldn’t recognize me as a “full” Canadian.

Had my mother only given birth to me in the US so SHE could obtain US Citizenship through me... I would see your point. But that is not the case.

Were the associated costs of your US delivery paid for by provincial healthcare under some agreement that directs Canadian residents to the nearest hospital even if it is in the US or did your mother just decide to go there on her own? if it is the former then maybe you have some compassionate case to make that you are not really a citizen by descent, but that's a long shot.

BTW, you are recognized as "fully Canadian." There is no second class Canadian citizenship (as there was when the Conservatives' citizenship stripping law was in effect) anymore. Its just that your kids aren't Canadian. Its a property (or lack thereof) that pertains to your children, not you. You can sponsor your children to immigrate to Canada and once they land apply for them to become naturalized citizens.

 

[meyakanor]

I understand and agree that if I had continued to live in the US immediately following my birth, never having claimed my citizenship and my children later in life would try to become Canadian on account that their grandmother was born in Canada...they would not be allowed. But this is not my situation. Again - no sense in debating this in a forum of public opinion. I will check with the proper authorities and retain legal council if necessary.

What you described should be the case is how the US citizenship by descent works.

Whether a US citizen parent (assuming the other biological parent is not a US citizen) can pass his/her citizenship depends on how long the said parent was physically present in the United States before the child was born. I believe, if the US parent was physically present for over 5 years (at least 3 out of the 5 years must be after the age of 14), then he/she can pass one citizenship if the child is born abroad, regardless if he/she was born a citizen or was a naturalized citizen.

Your children, unfortunately, are not Canadian citizens by descent, since you don't have the ability to pass down your citizenship to them (because you were not born in Canada, nor were you a naturalized Canadian citizen).

But you can still sponsor them for permanent residency (though they would age out at the age of 21, and there would be no other familial sponsorhip recourse to bring them here once they have aged out; if you're thinking of sponsoring your kids, you better do it as soon as you can). It would take maybe 18 to 24 months, and you must indicate that you are planning to move back to Canada once they become PRs.

 

[screech339]

BTW, you are recognized as "fully Canadian." There is no second class Canadian citizenship (as there was when the Conservatives' citizenship stripping law was in effect) anymore. Its just that your kids aren't Canadian. Its a property (or lack thereof) that pertains to your children, not you. You can sponsor your children to immigrate to Canada and once they land apply for them to become naturalized citizens.

You are right that there were never any 2nd class Canadian citizenship ever, including under the C-24 law. Otherwise, by your logic, we always had 2nd class citizenship since stripping of citizenship still exists before C-24 by treason or fraud. As long as there are stripping citizenship still exists in law, your idea of 2nd class citizenship still exist, despite you saying "No such thing as 2nd class citizenship anymore" .

 

[links18]

You are right that there were never any 2nd class Canadian citizenship ever, including under the C-24 law. Otherwise, by your logic, we always had 2nd class citizenship since stripping of citizenship still exists before C-24 by treason or fraud. As long as there are stripping citizenship still exists in law, your idea of 2nd class citizenship still exist, despite you saying "No such thing as 2nd class citizenship anymore" .

No, when they made citizenship stripping apply only to those who may have a claim to another citizenship, they created a second class citizenship. It wasn't the stripping that created second class citizenship, it was allowing it only for certain kinds of citizens.

 

[screech339]

No, when they made citizenship stripping apply only to those who may have a claim to another citizenship, they created a second class citizenship. It wasn't the stripping that created second class citizenship, it was allowing it only for certain kinds of citizens.

You do realized that there was a dual citizen, former MP Fred Rose, stripped of citizenship due to treason right? He was a dual citizen and lost it. No different from terrorism conviction. Both requires citizen to be dual in order to be stripped. How is it any different then from C-24. Absolutely no different at all. So as long as stripping of citizenship from dual citizens exists today, by your logic, we have 2nd class citizenship today.

 

[links18]

You do realized that there was a dual citizen, former MP Fred Rose, stripped of citizenship due to treason right? He was a dual citizen and lost it. No different from terrorism conviction. Both requires citizen to be dual in order to be stripped. How is it any different then from C-24. Absolutely no different at all. So as long as stripping of citizenship from dual citizens exists today, by your logic, we have 2nd class citizenship today.

You are suggesting citizenship can still be stripped today, for reasons other than misrepresentation?

 

[screech339]

You are suggesting citizenship can still be stripped today, for reasons other than misrepresentation?

Yes. Of course. Treason is the other conviction. You seem to cherry pick what you want to see.. You see fraud as part of the law but not treason. That still exists in law today.

 

[links18]

And treason. Don't forget. That still exists in law today.

No, it doesn't. But if it did, yes, it would create second class citizenship if it only applied to some citizens as a function of the nature of their citizenship, as opposed to their individual actions.

 

[mumbai1985]

No, it doesn't. But if it did, yes, it would create second class citizenship if it only applied to some citizens as a function of the nature of their citizenship, as opposed to their individual actions.

Correct. Fraud is the only reason that can cause revocation of Citizenship.

 

[itsmyid]

This thread has gone way off track lol

 

[screech339]

Correct. Fraud is the only reason that can cause revocation of Citizenship.

You are correct. I wasn't aware that they also removed treason from the law as well. I thought they only removed terrorism. Not that I am surprised by that, considering their known "hug a thug" policies.

 

[links18]

This thread has gone way off track lol

Welcome to the Internet. But not really, OP claimed they were not "fully Canadian," because they could not pass on citizenship to children born outside of Canada. That would constitute a form of second class citizenship, if true, but the legal issue is that the lack of citizenship at birth pertains to the nature of the children not the Canadian citizen parent. Citizenship is not something one owns and can pass on like an inheritance, it is a legal status governed by laws and norms and pertains to individuals, perhaps as a function of some quality of their parents' Citizenship, but it pertains to the individual nonetheless.

 

[links18]

You are correct. I wasn't aware that they also removed treason from the law as well. I thought they only removed terrorism. Not that I am surprised by that, considering their known "hug a thug" policies.

Apology accepted.

 

[screech339]

Apology accepted.

You want an apology from me for stating that there were never any 2nd class Canadian citizenship ever, including both pre-C-24, during C-24 period and post C-6 period?

Welcome to the Internet. But not really, OP claimed they were not "fully Canadian," because they could not pass on citizenship to children born outside of Canada. That would constitute a form of second class citizenship, if true, but the legal issue is that the lack of citizenship at birth pertains to the nature of the children not the Canadian citizen parent. Citizenship is not something one owns and can pass on like an inheritance, it is a legal status governed by laws and norms and pertains to individuals, perhaps as a function of some quality of their parents' Citizenship, but it pertains to the individual nonetheless.

Let get this straight:

I said that there was never any 2nd Canadian citizenship ever.

Links18:
Pre-C-24: treason, spying and fraud - no issue. (some Canadian are treated differently, no 2nd class citizenship, (you said only during Harper C-24 period does this occur.))
Post C-24: terrorism, treason, spying and fraud - (some Canadians are treated differently, 2nd class citizenship)
Post C-6 : fraud - (no 2nd class citizenship)
Pre-April-2009 (no 2nd class citizenship) - All Canadians can pass on citizenship.
Post April 2009 (some Canadians are treated differently, only some can pass on citizenship) (No 2nd class citizenship ever )???

Doesn't that contradict your "There is no second class Canadian citizenship anymore".

So according to you, it's not fair that during C-24 some citizens are treated differently but it's okay for some citizens to be treated differently post April 2009 citizenship law.

 

[links18]

I said there was

You want an apology from me for stating that there were never any 2nd class Canadian citizenship ever, including both pre-C-24, during C-24 period and post C-6 period?



Let get this straight:

I said that there was never any 2nd Canadian citizenship ever.

Links18:
Pre-C-24: treason, spying and fraud - no issue. (some Canadian are treated differently, no 2nd class citizenship, (you said only during Harper C-24 period does this occur.))
Post C-24: terrorism, treason, spying and fraud - (some Canadians are treated differently, 2nd class citizenship)
Post C-6 : fraud - (no 2nd class citizenship)
Pre-April-2009 (no 2nd class citizenship) - All Canadians can pass on citizenship.
Post April 2009 (some Canadians are treated differently, only some can pass on citizenship) (No 2nd class citizenship ever )???

Doesn't that contradict your "There is no second class Canadian citizenship anymore".

So according to you, it's not fair that during C-24 some citizens are treated differently but it's okay for some citizens to be treated differently post April 2009 citizenship law.

Christ, I was joking. Did you not see the emoji? Lighten up!

I said there was second class citizenship while the Cons' citizenship stripping law was in effect. I didn't say that was the only time there was second class citizenship. I also gave a rather lengthy explanation as to why "not being able to pass on citizenship," doesn't create a second class citizenship, but you appear to have missed it. In any event, you were flat out wrong that citizenship can be stripped for anything other than fraud today, despite your repeated insistence to the contrary.