Do you support the "one generation rule" of Canadian citizenship passing by descent?
- Thread starter drugsrbad
- Start date
What do you expect to get out of asking this question? Most people here are either TFWs, new PRs or new citizens, like me they won't hold much views on the topic.
Wouldn't they want to pass on their Canadian citizenship to their overseas-born children without restrictions?
No. I believe there should be some restriction, and I think ability to pass it on should be based on ties to Canada.
In fact I think the 'ties to Canada' should apply to all births abroad, even children of Canadians who were themselves born in Canada. But I'm also a realist that doing so would impose a very large bureaucratic / administrative burden on both applicants and government - and that this would cost a lot of money and time and only catch a very small number of cases. So on balance I think it's acceptable that they don't require this for parents who were born in Canada; or just 'waive' demonstrating that requirement for most cases (only requiring it at discretion of examining officer).
Note, I was born abroad of Canadian parents, but raised in Canada and lived only in Canada until completing university, and off and on in Canada for years after that. So I was caught by 'Harper's Rule', but would have passed any plausible test of Canadian ties. If you want to consider that biased, sure; or alternatively mine was precisely the type of case that the court decided upon.
I think citizenship should be passed to one generation overseas. For second and third generation, they should get Canadian citizenship if only they will be stateless otherwise.
I disagree with that approach - as did the courts, basically - because it does not take into account actual time in Canada. What logic is it that someone who spends, say, 30 years in Canada of 31 years cannot pass on citizenship (because they were born outside Canada while parents were studying abroad), whereas someone who is born in Canada and spends only a few months (as an infant!) can by right? Both hypothetical but real cases.
In other words, I agree with part of the overall principle - it should not be passed on forever by those with no connection to the country - but basing entirely on birth and not on actual lived experience in Canada is unfair and illogical.
Another very real case: someone born abroad and returns to Canada before one year of age and resides in Canada until adulthood (or really any age), let's specify more than two decades before having a child abroad cannot pass on citizenship (under the un-amended law). But an immigrant who comes to Canada, naturalizes with the bare minimum of time in Canada (1095 days + processing), can then leave the country and pass on citizenship to all their children born abroad.
That's why I think there is some reasonable logic to saying any citizen must reside in Canada 1095 days or more (akin to naturalized citizens) to have the right to pass on citizenship, regardless of place of birth. All citizens would be treated alike in this respect. (As noted, I expect it's unrealistic to expect proving 1095+ days of residence will be required of those born in Canada, simply because of cost/administrative burden, but that would be the most logical approach).
There should not be second-class citizens. Harper's Law created that second class.
IMO, of course. You can have your own opinion.