Citizenship by descent (2009 cut off date)

[Selda]

Hi all!

I have been exploring Canadian citizenship laws for last the few days. My understanding from 2009 citizenship act put a limit on passing the citizenship to the next generations born abroad: A Canadian born citizens can pass their citizenship to their children born abroad (first generation born abroad), but the first generation born abroad citizens can not pass it on to the second generation born abroad. The only way they can do is to sponsor their children when they decide to return Canada. But here is my question regarding that: what if second generation's parents die or don't return Canada for some reasons etc. before the children reach 19, and so these children can not become Canadian citizens by their adult age? I mean will these adult second generations born abroad be able to apply to PR in case they would like to return Canada?

I know this is not the case for now because these children are not adult yet, but I am sure it will be the case when they are adult. So I searched about this case but so far I have not seen anything about that. Thank you!

 

[scylla]

In that case these second generation individuals would have to qualify and apply for PR just like anyone else (i.e. their family history of citizenship won't be of any assistance). If they are approved for PR, they would then have to live in Canada for the required number of years before qualifying to apply for citizenship.

So the short answer is that they would then be like anyone else wanting to immigrate to Canada. They would have to qualify just like anyone else and go through the application and selection process just like anyone else.

 

[Selda]

Thank you for reply!

 

[Selda]

Also, this means that this cut off date will create new set of lost Canadians in the future.

 

[dpenabill]

Also, this means that this cut off date will create new set of lost Canadians in the future.

That is the Don Chapman school of thought.

But unlike the scores of individuals who fell through various cracks in the previous law, which has been amended many times in an effort to resolve the quirks and inconsistencies and oft times unjust consequences of the old law, the current law prescribes citizenship by descent in definite terms. Anyone born abroad, going forward (and barring further changes in the law), has no reason to believe they are a Canadian by descent unless one of their parents was born in Canada or was a naturalized Canadian citizen. Not particularly complicated, not for those going forward.

The so-called lost Canadians are mostly those who believe they are Canadian but due to complicated rules of citizenship they are not, or may not be able to establish their citizenship. The term also embraces some of the idiosyncrasies which resulted in the unjust exclusion of citizenship.

And while the current labyrinth of rules governing who is a citizen resolves the vast majority of these situations, it is not all that easy for individuals to figure out if they are in fact a citizen or to prove it if they are but IRCC does not readily agree. But this is about those born before the law limiting citizenship by descent to one generation born abroad.

Going forward, there should be little confusion, no real basis for believing one is a Canadian citizen when one is not . . . recognizing again that anyone born abroad now has no reason to believe he or she is a Canadian citizen by descent unless one parent was a citizen who was born in Canada or was a naturalized citizen (at the time of the child's birth of course).

My sense, despite the extent of good advocacy he pursued regarding the older law, and his contribution to correcting a lot of injustice, is that Don Chapman's campaign about the current law is not well-founded. Which is to emphasize I do not mean to disparage, at all, his prior efforts. Those were well-founded, and may very well have made a difference in fixing a lot of what was so wrong.

And, there will still be instances in which the current limitation on citizenship by descent appears to arbitrarily exclude some . . . for example, the child born abroad while parents are temporarily abroad who in turn were born abroad while their parents were temporarily abroad, no real ties to any other country. But in such instances, the parents can and should properly sponsor the child for PR status, after which citizenship can be applied for and obtained in due course. Obviously, those parents who are abroad for much longer periods of time have ties in the country where they are, so it would not be so unjust to exclude the children born there from citizenship by descent.

And there will be some instances in which local laws where the child is born may preclude citizenship there. But these are situations in which the Minister has discretion to grant citizenship . . . although, of course, the nature and extent of Canadian ties versus ties to other countries can influence whether a discretionary grant of citizenship is likely.

Overall, in any event, going forward the incidence of lost Canadians should be minimal under the current law. And Don Chapman's criticisms of Trudeau for giving citizenship to terrorists and withholding it from those who should legitimately be deemed citizens is hyperbolic rhetoric.

 

[Selda]

And, there will still be instances in which the current limitation on citizenship by descent appears to arbitrarily exclude some . . . for example, the child born abroad while parents are temporarily abroad who in turn were born abroad while their parents were temporarily abroad, no real ties to any other country. But in such instances, the parents can and should properly sponsor the child for PR status, after which citizenship can be applied for and obtained in due course. Obviously, those parents who are abroad for much longer periods of time have ties in the country where they are, so it would not be so unjust to exclude the children born there from citizenship by descent.

OK, I don't know all these details. First of all I am not Canadian. My husband is considered lost Canadian and his right to be a Canadian citizen was restored last year with 2015 citizenship act, and we just found it out a few days ago! While we were searching his case, we learned that one of his cousin, who is first generation born abroad like my husband, wanted to move back to Canada from the U.S. about 30 years ago, but she couldn't do it, because she was not recognized as a Canadian back then. After about 30 years, now she is recognized Canadian, and she is 62 now!! Isn't it a little too late for her? Her life would be very different now if she was allowed move back in Canada. But still, she is excited to hear that finally she has restored her citizenship rights and she will go for it!

For the instance that you mentioned above, this was exactly what I was asking (one of the cases). For example, nobody can guarantee that the Canadian parent is not going to die on the day baby is born, especially if the mother is Canadian, this can happen even during delivery, and the baby would not have the Canadian parent to sponsor her. So I was wondering what would be the case for the baby.

As I said I don't know much about the Canadian laws. But because of my husband's case, which we have just found out, I was digging into the laws and these kind of questions occurred in my mind while I was doing it.

 

[links18]

While I fully recognize the problems that come with granting citizenship in perpetuity to future generations born abroad, I think there should be some flexibility for second generation and after born abroad to assert Canadian citizenship through an affirmative registration process of some kind--like Ireland has. My opinion only....