Basically the title. I tried searching for this information online but I am getting conflicting answers. Some say that Canada only offers birthright citizenship to children who are born to Canadian citizen parents only but not to children who are born to illegal immigrants or those who are in the country on a Visa. So which one is it?
Does Canada have automatic birthright citizenship like the US?
- Thread starter deadinside
- Start date
At the risk of giving a more serious answer than was solicited . . .
It is complicated even if your query is focused on children born within the geographical territories/jurisdiction of Canada. When they were born matters, for example. The status of the parents at the time of the child's birth can matter even though in the vast majority of situations (including those in which neither parent has documented status in Canada), a child born within the geographical boundaries of Canada (born in Canada) is a Canadian citizen as of birth.
Meanwhile, even though there are some serious issues in Canadian citizenship law, not the least of which is the scope to which citizenship status is protected (there is no Charter right to Canadian citizenship for example), in public discourse this subject tends to be distorted, prone to being derailed, in which regard it is largely the railing rhetoric of our too often bellicose neighbour that has badly polluted the conversation.
Who is a Canadian citizen? (pursuant to statute; again, the Charter does not confer anyone the "right" of citizenship):
Section 3 of the Citizenship Act specifies who is a Canadian citizen. This is here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-1.html#h-81636
Section 3 is lengthy (somewhere between three and four thousand words) and very complicated. It has been revised many times. More than a few wrinkles are still being ironed out in the judiciary.
Many of the provisions stating who is a Canadian citizen are subject to various exceptions, and there are exceptions to the exceptions. I did mention it's complicated?
Perhaps the simplest of the dozen or so more direct provisions specifying who is a Canadian citizen is Section 3(1)(a) which states a person is a citizen of Canada if "the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977."
Even this is subject to exceptions, such as those children born in Canada to non-Canadian parents who are in Canada pursuant to diplomatic service (who this applies to and who it doesn't is the subject of a "landmark" Supreme Court of Canada decision, the Vavilov decision). This, and further elaboration as to the scope of these exceptions, is in Section 3(2) in the Citizenship Act, linked above.
Being a child born to "illegal immigrants" is not one of the exceptions.
Note: This phrasing, "illegal immigrants," is as much, if not more of a dog whistle than "birthright," and it is an import from the poisoned politics of our neighbour. Overstaying a visa is not a crime in Canada. Failing to leave despite being issued a Removal or Departure Order is not a crime. Overstaying or not leaving (despite an order to leave) is not even so much as an infraction or any kind of penal violation. Nonetheless there are more than a few, particularly those whose politics align with certain American interests, who insist on parsing terms (so long as it favours the politics they advocate), insisting that what is not authorized by law is legally unauthorized, and that means it is contrary to what is legal, thus they argue it is "illegal," doing so with the full intention of falsely insinuating criminality where there is none.
Which leads to how Canada differs from the U.S. . . .
The big difference between Canada and the U.S. is that one of the most important amendments to the U.S. Constitution confers U.S. citizenship on anyone born within the territory of the U.S. (The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled, barely a decade earlier than that constitutional amendment, that persons descending from Africans were not and could not be a U.S. citizen, no matter that they or their parents were born within the territorial boundaries of the U.S. It took the violent death of more than a half million American lives, which would be the equivalent of more than five million in today's U.S. population, and adopting the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to in effect overrule the infamous Dred Scott decision.)
There is NO comparable Charter or constitutional provision in Canada. In fact, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeals has ruled there is no "right" to Canadian citizenship, that Canadian citizenship entirely depends on what is prescribed by statute (which is subject to change by Parliament, which has indeed changed "who" is a Canadian citizen many times during my lifetime).
Overall:
For the present, and probably for at least another generation if not more, I'd guess, generally anyone born within the geographical boundaries of Canada is a citizen as of birth. As prescribed by statute not by "right," not by a right prescribed in the Charter of Rights.
It is a little more complicated for those born outside Canada. Until somewhat recently a child born with at least one parent who, at the time of the birth, is a Canadian citizen, was a Canadian citizen as of birth . . . this is the other branch of birthright citizenship: birthright based on parentage, or "blood" ("jus sanguinis").
I believe that is still the U.S. law. If either parent is a U.S. citizen, a child born outside U.S. jurisdiction is a U.S. citizen as of birth.
The Canadian law in this regard currently differs from the U.S. birthright based on parentage. Canada's current law, with some exceptions, limits parentage birthright to the first generation born outside Canada. Basically, if the child's parent was born in Canada, or the child's parent is a naturalized Canadian citizen, a child born outside Canada is a Canadian citizen as of birth regardless of where born . . . with some wrinkles beyond the reach of my ironing out such things (see Sections 3(3) to 3(5.2) in the Citizenship Act).
It is more complicated than that.
It is complicated even if your query is focused on children born within the geographical territories/jurisdiction of Canada. When they were born matters, for example. The status of the parents at the time of the child's birth can matter even though in the vast majority of situations (including those in which neither parent has documented status in Canada), a child born within the geographical boundaries of Canada (born in Canada) is a Canadian citizen as of birth.
Meanwhile, even though there are some serious issues in Canadian citizenship law, not the least of which is the scope to which citizenship status is protected (there is no Charter right to Canadian citizenship for example), in public discourse this subject tends to be distorted, prone to being derailed, in which regard it is largely the railing rhetoric of our too often bellicose neighbour that has badly polluted the conversation.
Who is a Canadian citizen? (pursuant to statute; again, the Charter does not confer anyone the "right" of citizenship):
Section 3 of the Citizenship Act specifies who is a Canadian citizen. This is here: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-1.html#h-81636
Section 3 is lengthy (somewhere between three and four thousand words) and very complicated. It has been revised many times. More than a few wrinkles are still being ironed out in the judiciary.
Many of the provisions stating who is a Canadian citizen are subject to various exceptions, and there are exceptions to the exceptions. I did mention it's complicated?
Perhaps the simplest of the dozen or so more direct provisions specifying who is a Canadian citizen is Section 3(1)(a) which states a person is a citizen of Canada if "the person was born in Canada after February 14, 1977."
Even this is subject to exceptions, such as those children born in Canada to non-Canadian parents who are in Canada pursuant to diplomatic service (who this applies to and who it doesn't is the subject of a "landmark" Supreme Court of Canada decision, the Vavilov decision). This, and further elaboration as to the scope of these exceptions, is in Section 3(2) in the Citizenship Act, linked above.
Being a child born to "illegal immigrants" is not one of the exceptions.
Note: This phrasing, "illegal immigrants," is as much, if not more of a dog whistle than "birthright," and it is an import from the poisoned politics of our neighbour. Overstaying a visa is not a crime in Canada. Failing to leave despite being issued a Removal or Departure Order is not a crime. Overstaying or not leaving (despite an order to leave) is not even so much as an infraction or any kind of penal violation. Nonetheless there are more than a few, particularly those whose politics align with certain American interests, who insist on parsing terms (so long as it favours the politics they advocate), insisting that what is not authorized by law is legally unauthorized, and that means it is contrary to what is legal, thus they argue it is "illegal," doing so with the full intention of falsely insinuating criminality where there is none.
Which leads to how Canada differs from the U.S. . . .
The big difference between Canada and the U.S. is that one of the most important amendments to the U.S. Constitution confers U.S. citizenship on anyone born within the territory of the U.S. (The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled, barely a decade earlier than that constitutional amendment, that persons descending from Africans were not and could not be a U.S. citizen, no matter that they or their parents were born within the territorial boundaries of the U.S. It took the violent death of more than a half million American lives, which would be the equivalent of more than five million in today's U.S. population, and adopting the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to in effect overrule the infamous Dred Scott decision.)
There is NO comparable Charter or constitutional provision in Canada. In fact, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeals has ruled there is no "right" to Canadian citizenship, that Canadian citizenship entirely depends on what is prescribed by statute (which is subject to change by Parliament, which has indeed changed "who" is a Canadian citizen many times during my lifetime).
Side note: what is conferred by statute is often referred to by many as "rights" but in strict legal terms these are not rights in that they are not established or directly protected by the Charter and can be limited or even taken away, mostly depending on the governing statutory law at the time as adopted by Parliament . . . noting, for example, that "who" qualifies as a Canadian citizen has changed several times during my lifetime, and for a period of time since I became a citizen the law provided for revoking the citizenship even of those who are a citizen based on being born in Canada in certain circumstances involving the commission of certain crimes.
Overall:
For the present, and probably for at least another generation if not more, I'd guess, generally anyone born within the geographical boundaries of Canada is a citizen as of birth. As prescribed by statute not by "right," not by a right prescribed in the Charter of Rights.
It is a little more complicated for those born outside Canada. Until somewhat recently a child born with at least one parent who, at the time of the birth, is a Canadian citizen, was a Canadian citizen as of birth . . . this is the other branch of birthright citizenship: birthright based on parentage, or "blood" ("jus sanguinis").
I believe that is still the U.S. law. If either parent is a U.S. citizen, a child born outside U.S. jurisdiction is a U.S. citizen as of birth.
The Canadian law in this regard currently differs from the U.S. birthright based on parentage. Canada's current law, with some exceptions, limits parentage birthright to the first generation born outside Canada. Basically, if the child's parent was born in Canada, or the child's parent is a naturalized Canadian citizen, a child born outside Canada is a Canadian citizen as of birth regardless of where born . . . with some wrinkles beyond the reach of my ironing out such things (see Sections 3(3) to 3(5.2) in the Citizenship Act).
Last edited:
It's not much more complicated than that, if you limit it to the question of what is meant by the usage of the US term (however loaded and polemical), which is (my paraphrase) 'are those born in USA/Canada citizens because of their birth within the country?'. You can add 'regardless of the immigration status of their parents at the time of birth', if you wish.
And the answer is basically 'yes.' Except for the one big exception that both have...
...the major exception, as you rightly say, being children born of parents pursuant to diplomatic service. And that exception very much parallels the exception in the US constitution, which reads "...and subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" - that phrasing historically meaning primarily those who are in diplomatic/consular service and therefore (acc to US and international law) not subject to its jurisdiction. [I understand US law also interpreted this as not applying to some native territories ('sovereign' by treaty), as outside US jursdiction, and that interpretation was subsequently changed by statute.]
Yes, one could have multiple legal seminars about whether these provisions are identical - and they're not, the Canadian provisions are worded quite differently - but they serve the same purpose and so let's leave those discussions aside on the basis of 'close enough'.
[I suppose we do have to pause to swat aside the argument that those in USA 'illegally' are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, which we can do - for purposes here - by just saying that argument is stupid, mendacious, and fallacious. If anyone cares to make it, which I understand some in the USA do, but that's their problem, and they can please discuss it somewhere that's not Canada.]
Other than this quibble about how complicated it is (where I'm just saying not that complicated at present, IMO), I agree with your points.
This is not even a quibble, just noting that some will read Part I of the Citizenship Act, boldly entitled "The Right to Citizenship", as in fact conferring a right, and here I fully agree with your point: a 'right' prescribed by statute is not the same as a constitutional right (which the 14th Amendment provides in the US). Even if that part of the statute has a bold title, that statute does not confer that type of right (indeed, not even clear to me that having 'right' in the title of a section has legal meaning if the law's text doesn't clarify what that means, but I'm not a lawyer). Lawyers can and will of course argue about the meaning of those distinctions.
That said, for most contexts currently sufficient to say that Canadian statute and American law confer citizenship to children born in their respective territories*, with exceptions mostly limited to children of diplomats and the like.
*Damn, I have to pause to say 'which US territories this applies to ...', well, please consult American specialists, because there are currently and have been exceptions (see American Samoa, for example).
Last edited:
Yep, kids of diplomats and similar are a TINY portion of total births.
As to where this comes from: my guess would be usual forum mistakes all over the internet.
Now supplemented by 'helpful' AI summarizers that give entirely plausible but fundamentally flawed and/or ambiguous answers; that is, bullshit or wafflegab.
That's a rather generous view. One I do not share. In particular I do not buy the OP's claim to having done the research and getting conflicting answers.
Perhaps the OP's use of terms like "illegal immigrants" was incidental, and notwithstanding a query oriented not to who-is-a-Canadian-citizen as much as it revolves around, as you referred to it, "the dogwhistle birthright citizenship," perhaps it is a genuine query sincerely seeking enlightenment, as the OP has defensively expressed in the PR Obligations part of the forum: "What? I'm asking a question about a hypothetical situation and trying to better understand immigration laws and rules."
If so, if the question is honestly seeking education about who is a Canadian citizen, why frame the question in reference to the U.S. and "birthright citizenship," no decoder necessary to discern the genesis of that, and claim to have done the research but "getting conflicting answers?"
Spoiler alert: there are no conflicting answers. (Well, OK, @Seym suggests some potential suspects . . . deserving some salty attributions but zero credibility.)
So, a confession, I was understating things when I prefaced my previous response as being made "at the risk of giving a more serious answer than was solicited."
In many ways it is as simple as @andrews17 puts it. In contrast I was deliberately serious (as I am wont to be in regards to matters of law), for a reason.
And to be clear, the gist of what @andrews17 responded is what even a poorly composed and carelessly executed online search would reveal, no "conflicting answers" in sight (at least not absent a search that is deliberately focused on finding such conflicts and willfully ignoring credible sources).
There are various ways the results of a search (for who is a Canadian citizen) are phrased, and of course like any online search these days there are scores of algorithm derived but obviously not relevant tangents included in the results. The more prominent and readily recognized as relevant results from credible sources generally say something like this:
Persons may be a Canadian citizen by birth or by naturalization.
Those who are a Canadian citizen by birth include those children born in Canada, with some exceptions (such as children born to diplomats), and children born outside Canada if at the time of birth at least one parent is a Canadian citizen, also with some exceptions (the big exception, somewhat recently added, in 2009, is the provision limiting the number of generations of citizenship by descent).
Again, little or no hint in the search results of any conflicting answers. Those looking to the U.S. for the words to describe the claim of getting conflicting answers about this, their outgoing President Joe Biden has one that is rather fitting: malarkey. (But old Joe is being shown the door, which says . . . well, here too, no decoder necessary to read that message.)
Meanwhile, among the more prominent, and relevant hits, for even a poorly composed query online, there is the link to IRCC's information titled "See if you may be a citizen" . . . see https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/canadian-citizenship/become-canadian-citizen/eligibility/already-citizen.html . . . which is also easily reached through the IRCC home page, clicking on the link for citizenship, and then the link under the heading "Find out if you're already a citizen" subtitled "Ways you can be a Canadian citizen.", which links to the same "See if you may be a citizen" information provided by IRCC. That is, by following the rather obvious links.
That page lists the four more common ways a person is "likely" (not necessarily or for sure) a citizen of Canada, including the two some refer to as birthright citizenship:
-- those persons who were born in Canada, referred to by some as jus soli
-- those persons who were born outside Canada and at least 1 parent was born in Canada or became a naturalized Canadian citizen (before the child was born), referred to by some as "jus sanguinis"
It also lists situations in which it is "likely" a person is NOT a Canadian citizen.
While IRCC tends to overuse a term such as "likely," as it does "may," when a more precise explanation would be far more helpful, few are confused or misled about a child being a Canadian citizen by virtue of being born in Canada. At least currently.
Nonetheless, who is a Canadian citizen is a complicated subject. There are nineteen separate subsections in Section 3 in the Citizenship Act prescribing circumstances in which a person is a Canadian citizen, and scores of additional provisions clarifying and qualifying who is a citizen, including some limiting and some expanding the scope of who is a citizen, many subject to complex contingencies. All of which is subject to change. Much of which has been changed over the years.
Make no mistake, during my lifetime there have been many people born in Canada who were not Canadian citizens (yeah, I'm old, old enough to have been the parent of children born well before 1977, for example, and the first time I came to Canada Louis St. Laurent was Prime Minister, the proponent of progressive social welfare programs which have become a core element of Canadian life, which was while Dwight Eisenhower was the U.S. President, intent on building roads and expanding that country's the military might, taking a different path one might say); the laws which rendered some born in Canada excluded from Canadian citizenship have since changed. And as I previously nodded, the statutory conferral of citizenship on those born in Canada is not likely to change for at least a generation, and perhaps it will not change for quite a lot longer, but it could change, and during my lifetime there were many years during which just being born in Canada did not necessarily result in being a Canadian citizen.
Meanwhile, if it appears that I have been making an effort to drown a potentially inflammatory invitation for invective by smothering the subject in esoteric logorrhea (and yeah, that's akin to what it rhymes with), I never pretended to be an innocent.
Short version: conflicting answers my . . .