2nd generation child born

[rcincanada2019]

Under the proposed rule, as long as the parent had been physically present in Canada for 1095 days before the child is born, then the child would be a Canadian citizen; in this case, if the parent was in Canada for 1095 days before travelling, then the foreign-born child will be a Canadian citizen.

What if a few months before leaving, the parents also travelled to another country for a few days?

 

[armoured]

What if a few months before leaving, the parents also travelled to another country for a few days?

Final version of law has not been adopted, nor implementing regulations, etc. Right now people think it will work something like citizenship, wherein 1095 days in Canada [in some period?] will be sufficient.

So in your question, wouldn't matter if they travel at all, as long as they also accumulate enough days in total.

But again - there's no law yet.

 

[scylla]

Final version of law has not been adopted, nor implementing regulations, etc. Right now people think it will work something like citizenship, wherein 1095 days in Canada [in some period?] will be sufficient.

So in your question, wouldn't matter if they travel at all, as long as they also accumulate enough days in total.

But again - there's no law yet.

FYI - There's actually a lot of information already available on how the law will almost certainly play out. See hawk39,'s posts. Hawk39 is pretty much our subject matter expect on citizenship laws here. People aren't really guessing at this point. Obviously nothing is final until announced. But very high probability on what it will be.

 

[hawk39]

What if a few months before leaving, the parents also travelled to another country for a few days?

Regardless of if, when and where the parents have travelled, under the proposed rules, all that is required is that the parents satisfy the presence test before the child's birth.

Here is C-71. the bill to amend the Citizenship Act with the proposed rules.

Here is the text in the bill to implement the presence test, particularly 3(a)(ii) and 3(b)(ii).

Considering that Parliament was not able to pass it before their recess, any or all of it can change as @armoured and @scylla has pointed out. The judge extended the deadline of the first-generation limit annulment until August to give Parliament more time. I think this was needed as the bill does not explain how the presence test would be administered, or if it has to be within a certain period like the presence test for PRs applying for citizenship.

 

[armoured]

Considering that Parliament was not able to pass it before their recess, any or all of it can change as @armoured and @scylla has pointed out.

Yeah, I am always cautious about legislation that hasn't been adopted. Until it has been, it has all the legal force of a dishrag, and changes can happen. (Even if I don't think big changes are that likely)

The judge extended the deadline of the first-generation limit annulment until August to give Parliament more time. I think this was needed as the bill does not explain how the presence test would be administered, or if it has to be within a certain period like the presence test for PRs applying for citizenship.

I read the language on this that the government has until August to respond to the court with reasons. I may have misunderstood that, but even the August deadline is not yet a firm one (IMO) - although I doubt the judge will be amenable to it dragging out much longer.

 

[hawk39]

I read the language on this that the government has until August to respond to the court with reasons. I may have misunderstood that, but even the August deadline is not yet a firm one (IMO) - although I doubt the judge will be amenable to it dragging out much longer.

The judge didn't ask for a reason for this first extension; she said she does not understand why they could not put something together within the last six months, but she will need an explanation in August if they want another extension to December, which is what they initially asked for when she issued her order last year. In my opinion, her order to completely annul the entire first-generation limit was too radical, like removing the entire limb when only one appendage is gangrenous, and that she understands the potential implications and was willing to give the extension.