Citizenship by descent question/confusion

[alexjw19]

I have seen many threads about the 2009 Laws on citizenship by descent and how that applies to various generations, but I have seen several contradicting answers and scenarios all which seem to have "special cases" or something of the like. I was hoping someone could be kind enough to help me out?

Scenario:
-I am a U.S.-born guy who was born in 1998 to a father who is unquestionably all-American and a mother who has Canadian heritage (and I believe is a citizen)
-My mother was born in 1966 in the USA to parents (my grandparents) who were natural-born Canadian citizens
-When my grandparents moved to the USA, they did NOT become U.S. citizens until around 1997/1998-ish
-My mother was not registered as born abroad and did not file to retain citizenship, but I am confused how the 1977 laws affected her status as a citizen

I know my mother is Canadian from descent. This is where I am confused. I would like to know if I am considered a Canadian citizen? Here are a couple of links to scenarios I found on this site which I believe I fall into: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/establishing-canadian-citizenship-by-descent-as-an-adult.123070/page-2 (post number 26) and https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/second-generation-canadian-citizen.84408/page-2 (post number 23).

Thank you all so much and if you need more details, I would be happy to provide some

 

[steaky]

Your mother will need to apply her Canadian citizenship card first.

 

[alexjw19]

Your mother will need to apply her Canadian citizenship card first.

If she receives her card, what would that mean for me?

 

[Kayjulia]

I too am little confused about citizenship through descendants. My Mother was born in Cabonear Newfoundland in 1915 her parents and grandparents were also born there. She immigrated to the US with her parents in 1944 she had me. Do I qualify for Canadian Citizenship? If so what do I need and how do I apply?

 

[vensak]

you are most likely not a Canadian citizen.
The problem is that your mother was never registered as a Canadian citizen. So when you were born and she was not registered, you will not be considered a Citizen.
And yes your mother can get her citizenship proof but not you. And that is regardless if you were born before 2009 or not. The problem is, that at the time of your birth, she was not recognized a Canadian citizen.

Then again you can try to check officially.

 

[hawk39]

I have seen many threads about the 2009 Laws on citizenship by descent and how that applies to various generations, but I have seen several contradicting answers and scenarios all which seem to have "special cases" or something of the like. I was hoping someone could be kind enough to help me out?

Scenario:
-I am a U.S.-born guy who was born in 1998 to a father who is unquestionably all-American and a mother who has Canadian heritage (and I believe is a citizen)
-My mother was born in 1966 in the USA to parents (my grandparents) who were natural-born Canadian citizens
-When my grandparents moved to the USA, they did NOT become U.S. citizens until around 1997/1998-ish
-My mother was not registered as born abroad and did not file to retain citizenship, but I am confused how the 1977 laws affected her status as a citizen

I know my mother is Canadian from descent. This is where I am confused. I would like to know if I am considered a Canadian citizen? Here are a couple of links to scenarios I found on this site which I believe I fall into: https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/establishing-canadian-citizenship-by-descent-as-an-adult.123070/page-2 (post number 26) and https://www.canadavisa.com/canada-immigration-discussion-board/threads/second-generation-canadian-citizen.84408/page-2 (post number 23).

Thank you all so much and if you need more details, I would be happy to provide some

The big changes that the 1977 Act did in regards to citizenship by descent were to abolish the registration requirement, abolish the requirement to renounce foreign citizenship (allowing multiple citizenships), and abolish the retention requirement for first generations born abroad. With the abolishment of the registration requirement, a delayed registration period was implemented between 1977 until 2004 to allow those that did not have their birth registered to do so, regardless of their age; thus enabling them to be able to also pass on citizenship to their children. Those that did not take advantage of this delayed registration period had their citizenship restored automatically in 2009 (i.e. your mother), but because of the first generation limit imposed in 2009, their children were no longer eligible for citizenship by descent. Unfortunately, I think this would now apply to you because you are the second generation born abroad.

 

[hawk39]

I too am little confused about citizenship through descendants. My Mother was born in Cabonear Newfoundland in 1915 her parents and grandparents were also born there. She immigrated to the US with her parents in 1944 she had me. Do I qualify for Canadian Citizenship? If so what do I need and how do I apply?

As long as your mother did not officially renounce her British Subject status with the government before 1949, then yes, you are eligible for citizenship by descent. The instructions for applying for proof of citizenship with the list of required documents is found here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/application-citizenship-certificate-adults-minors.html

 

[vensak]

As long as your mother did not lose her British Subject status before 1949, then yes, you are eligible for citizenship by descent. The instructions for applying for proof of citizenship with the list of required documents is found here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/application/application-forms-guides/application-citizenship-certificate-adults-minors.html

From his statement it is not clear if:
His mother moved to USA in 1944 or if he was was born in 1944 or both. It is also not clear if his mother has acquired USA citizenship before he was born or not.
If she did get USA citizenship in 1944 voluntarily, then she would have lost her at that time British citizenship. Which would be later on problem for him.

 

[hawk39]

From his statement it is not clear if:
His mother moved to USA in 1944 or if he was was born in 1944 or both. It is also not clear if his mother has acquired USA citizenship before he was born or not.
If she did get USA citizenship in 1944 voluntarily, then she would have lost her at that time British citizenship. Which would be later on problem for him.

You got a point there, but I think it depends on whether his/her mother had officially renounced her British Subject status to the government than just merely acquiring US citizenship.

Even if his/her mother's acquisition of US citizenship was seen as a involuntary renunciation of her British Subject status at that time, I think his/her mother's citizenship was restored in 2015 because of 3(1)(l), which I paraphrase as 'anyone who was born or naturalized in Canada and Newfoundland before April 1, 1949 that lost their British Subject status because of prior legislation is now a Canadian citizen.' With that in place, 3(1)(p) was introduced to grant citizenship to their children that are of the first generation born abroad, which would apply to Kayjulia if his/her mother was a 3(1)(l) recipient. I also ran the "Am I a Canadian?" tool with the following responses:

• Where were you born? Outside Canada
• Parent/grandparent a Crown servent? No
• Naturalized as a British Subject, or ever granted citizenship? No
• One of my parents was … born in Newfoundland before April 1, 1949.
• You are probably a Canadian citizen.

With that, I think Kayjulia has a very good chance at successfully applying for proof of Canadian citizenship, provided that his/her mother did not officially renounce her British Subject status with the government.

 

[vensak]

You got a point there, but I think it depends on whether his/her mother had officially renounced her British Subject status to the government than just merely acquiring US citizenship.

Even if his/her mother's acquisition of US citizenship was seen as a involuntary renunciation of her British Subject status at that time, I think his/her mother's citizenship was restored in 2015 because of 3(1)(l), which I paraphrase as 'anyone who was born or naturalized in Canada and Newfoundland before April 1, 1949 that lost their British Subject status because of prior legislation is now a Canadian citizen.' With that in place, 3(1)(p) was introduced to grant citizenship to their children that are of the first generation born abroad, which would apply to Kayjulia if his/her mother was a 3(1)(l) recipient. I also ran the "Am I a Canadian?" tool with the following responses:

• Where were you born? Outside Canada
• Parent/grandparent a Crown servent? No
• Naturalized as a British Subject, or ever granted citizenship? No
• One of my parents was … born in Newfoundland before April 1, 1949.
• You are probably a Canadian citizen.

With that, I think Kayjulia has a very good chance at successfully applying for proof of Canadian citizenship, provided that his/her mother did not officially renounce her British Subject status with the government.

You are mixing prior legislations as of those from Canada. However before 1947 anybody was a British subject and as such they were under British legislation. And that one was not allowing double citizenship. So by getting other citizenship volunarily (naturalisation) parents would loose their British citizenship volunarily. And without it they could never get Canadian citizenship.

What you are pointing are the laws happening after that (for example the required registration after 1977).

 

[hawk39]

You are mixing prior legislations as of those from Canada. However before 1947 anybody was a British subject and as such they were under British legislation. And that one was not allowing double citizenship. So by getting other citizenship volunarily (naturalisation) parents would loose their British citizenship volunarily. And without it they could never get Canadian citizenship.

What you are pointing are the laws happening after that (for example the required registration after 1977).

I am not disagreeing with you that under British law, Kayjulia's mother lost her British Subject status if she acquired US citizenship; in the past, yes, it was a big deal if a British Subject acquired a foreign nationality. However in the present day, in which the current legislation is in effect, it is not; and I still believe that the 2015 Act, particularly 3(1)(l), is what granted Kayjulia's mother her Canadian citizenship, and with 3(1)(p), Kayjulia's eligibility for citizenship. I think the point that was being made with this legislation is to say that, regardless of when, as long as someone was born on the soil of what is now Canada, and did not officially, directly and willfully renounce their status, that he/she is/was always considered Canadian. I'm not a lawyer, but I would be interested to hear your interpretation of the current legislation, and in particular, 3(1)(l) and 3(1)(p).

 

[vensak]

I am not disagreeing with you that under British law, Kayjulia's mother lost her British Subject status if she acquired US citizenship; in the past, yes, it was a big deal if a British Subject acquired a foreign nationality. However in the present day, in which the current legislation is in effect, it is not; and I still believe that the 2015 Act, particularly 3(1)(l), is what granted Kayjulia's mother her Canadian citizenship, and with 3(1)(p), Kayjulia's eligibility for citizenship. I think the point that was being made with this legislation is to say that, regardless of when, as long as someone was born on the soil of what is now Canada, and did not officially, directly and willfully renounce their status, that he/she is/was always considered Canadian. I'm not a lawyer, but I would be interested to hear your interpretation of the current legislation, and in particular, 3(1)(l) and 3(1)(p).

I think here is your answer (from the link you have posted):

Born or naturalized in Newfoundland and Labrador before April 1, 1949, lost British subject status before that date and did not become a citizen on or before that date [paragraph 3(1)(l)]
Pursuant to subsection 3(2.3), persons did not become Canadian citizens under paragraph 3(1)(l) if they

• renounced their British subject status (made a declaration of alienage);
• renounced their citizenship with the Canadian government;
• 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);
• acquired citizenship by fraud, false representation or concealing material circumstances, and that citizenship was revoked by the Canadian government.

Now if his mother did get USA citizenship before he was born or before 1949 (since at that time getting dual citizenship would mean, that she ceased to be a British citizen), then she could never become Canadian citizen and as a consequence neither could he.

That is why knowing that fact is so important.

 

[hawk39]

I think here is your answer (from the link you have posted):

Born or naturalized in Newfoundland and Labrador before April 1, 1949, lost British subject status before that date and did not become a citizen on or before that date [paragraph 3(1)(l)]
Pursuant to subsection 3(2.3), persons did not become Canadian citizens under paragraph 3(1)(l) if they

• renounced their British subject status (made a declaration of alienage);
• renounced their citizenship with the Canadian government;
• 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);
• acquired citizenship by fraud, false representation or concealing material circumstances, and that citizenship was revoked by the Canadian government.

Now if his mother did get USA citizenship before he was born or before 1949 (since at that time getting dual citizenship would mean, that she ceased to be a British citizen), then she could never become Canadian citizen and as a consequence neither could he.

That is why knowing that fact is so important.

Please see the actual text of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 for the procedure of making a declaration of alienage in paragraph 14, and the procedure and criminal charges for which one can have their certificate of nationality revoked under paragraph 7 (as the 1943 Act does not make any changes to these procedures, and references that it was an amendment to the 1914 Act).

A declaration of alienage (renunciation) has to be made by the person to the government. Also note that loss due to acquisition of a foreign nationality under paragraph 13 is a separate clause and is not listed under a reason one can not be granted Canadian citizenship by 3(1)(l).

The charges for revocation are gaining through misrepresentation, treason, sentenced to prison for more than a year, being not of good moral character, living outside of the Dominion for more than seven years, or disrespecting his/her Majesty. Please also note that revocation is not listed under reason for loss of British nationality under paragraphs 13-16 because revocation only applies to people granted British Nationality; those that were born as British nationals, such as Kayjulia's mother, are defined as natural-born British Subjects and are not subject to loss through revocation.

 

[vensak]

Please see the actual text of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 for the procedure of making a declaration of alienage in paragraph 14, and the procedure and criminal charges for which one can have their certificate of nationality revoked under paragraph 7 (as the 1943 Act does not make any changes to these procedures, and references that it was an amendment to the 1914 Act).

A declaration of alienage (renunciation) has to be made by the person to the government. Also note that loss due to acquisition of a foreign nationality under paragraph 13 is a separate clause and is not listed under a reason one can not be granted Canadian citizenship by 3(1)(l).

The charges for revocation are gaining through misrepresentation, treason, sentenced to prison for more than a year, being not of good moral character, living outside of the Dominion for more than seven years, or disrespecting his/her Majesty. Please also note that revocation is not listed under reason for loss of British nationality under paragraphs 13-16 because revocation only applies to people granted British Nationality; those that were born as British nationals, such as Kayjulia's mother, are defined as natural-born British Subjects and are not subject to loss through revocation.

There are 2 problems there.
1. His mother was born before 1914, so even older common law does apply to her birth.
2. There are several ways how he could never even be a British citizen
So let us see (again from your link):

10National status of married women

Where a woman has (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) married an alien, and was at the time of her marriage a British subject, she shall not, by reason only of her marriage, be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject unless, by reason of her marriage, she acquired the nationality of her husband.

Where a man ceases, during the continuance of his marriage, to be a British subject and, by reason of his acquisition of a new nationality, his wife also acquires that nationality, she may, whether her marriage is still continuing or not, at any time within the period of twelve months from the date on which she so acquired that nationality, or at such later time as the Secretary of State may in special circumstances allow, make a declaration that she desires to retain British nationality, and thereupon she shall be deemed to have remained a British subject.

Where an alien is a subject of a state at war with His Majesty, it shall be lawful for his wife, if she was at birth a British subject, to make a declaration that she desires to resume British nationality, and thereupon the Secretary of State, if he is satisfied that it is desirable that she be permitted to do so, may grant her a certificate of naturalization.

Status of children

(1)Where a person being a British subject ceases to be a British subject, whether by declaration of alienage or, otherwise, every child of that person, being a minor, shall thereupon cease to be a British subject, unless such child, on that person ceasing to be a British subject, does not become by the law of any other country naturalized in that country :

So as funny as it is there are more ways for a woman or for a child to loose their nationality. In the story we are talking about all is happening between 1913 and 1944. So during that time his mother could have ceased to be a British citizen in a several ways.
And more importantly at the time of his birth, his mother could not pass her British citizenship on him. Because at that time you would have to have a British father if you were born outside.

And yes there was a law in 1949 that partially corrected this problem. However at that time Canada was there alone standing, hence the issue there.
Also if ever his mother ceased to be a British citizen, but she did request it back, from that moment on she would be regarded as a naturalized citizen with all the beauties that goes with it.

So yes that case is not that simple and it really depends what exactly was happening with his family back then.

 

[hawk39]

There are 2 problems there.
1. His mother was born before 1914, so even older common law does apply to her birth.
2. There are several ways how he could never even be a British citizen
So let us see (again from your link):

10National status of married women

Where a woman has (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) married an alien, and was at the time of her marriage a British subject, she shall not, by reason only of her marriage, be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject unless, by reason of her marriage, she acquired the nationality of her husband.

Where a man ceases, during the continuance of his marriage, to be a British subject and, by reason of his acquisition of a new nationality, his wife also acquires that nationality, she may, whether her marriage is still continuing or not, at any time within the period of twelve months from the date on which she so acquired that nationality, or at such later time as the Secretary of State may in special circumstances allow, make a declaration that she desires to retain British nationality, and thereupon she shall be deemed to have remained a British subject.

Where an alien is a subject of a state at war with His Majesty, it shall be lawful for his wife, if she was at birth a British subject, to make a declaration that she desires to resume British nationality, and thereupon the Secretary of State, if he is satisfied that it is desirable that she be permitted to do so, may grant her a certificate of naturalization.

Status of children

(1)Where a person being a British subject ceases to be a British subject, whether by declaration of alienage or, otherwise, every child of that person, being a minor, shall thereupon cease to be a British subject, unless such child, on that person ceasing to be a British subject, does not become by the law of any other country naturalized in that country :

So as funny as it is there are more ways for a woman or for a child to loose their nationality. In the story we are talking about all is happening between 1913 and 1944. So during that time his mother could have ceased to be a British citizen in a several ways.
And more importantly at the time of his birth, his mother could not pass her British citizenship on him. Because at that time you would have to have a British father if you were born outside.

And yes there was a law in 1949 that partially corrected this problem. However at that time Canada was there alone standing, hence the issue there.
Also if ever his mother ceased to be a British citizen, but she did request it back, from that moment on she would be regarded as a naturalized citizen with all the beauties that goes with it.

So yes that case is not that simple and it really depends what exactly was happening with his family back then.

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.

My Mother was born in Cabonear Newfoundland in 1915

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