How to ensure your child does not get Canadian citizenship?

[tracker_01]

Stick to your guns and apply to sponsor your child. When the app is returned because your child is already a citizen, you will have your definitive answer.

You will not find someone on the forum who has done this because it is just not possible.

OK. Thanks.

 

[marcus66502]

Look. Just saying your child is automatically Canadian is simple. However, I have provided court cases that seem to support my point. So, rather than questioning what happens when you enter/leave country X, let's stick to main point. Is child born abroad automatically Canadian or just has right to Citizenship? Simply making statements without substantiating them is easy, but proving your case is difficult. I would respectfully ask that participants of this thread chose latter than former.

This IS the main point. If you want to assert that your child is NOT Canadian at birth, then how can Country X border officials be sure he/she is? What information do they have that you don't?

It doesn't sound like you're seeking answers here. You just want others to tell you that you're right about what you already want to believe. If you want to believe your child will not be Canadian at birth, then just tell Country X border officials so and there should be no problem. They should allow the child to enter and leave the country freely without requiring him/her to renounce a citizenship that he/she doesn't actually have.

I think the real reason you're here is the fear that Country X border officials will have a problem with the fact that you and your child live in Canada, and will give you a hard time just for this fact alone. This is unfortunate and is a lot more common in today's world among naturalized citizens. But it's a problem nobody here can help you with. People who live in undeveloped countries (including border officers) will obviously be jealous of those that have managed to secure the right to live in the Western world and will do the only thing they can do: give naturalized citizens a hard time when they visit their former countries.

My suggestion for this kind of situation is this: if you and your child have to visit Country X, try not to disclose that you have citizenship elsewhere. Bragging about your Canadian citizenship at the very least gets you jealous mean stares almost anywhere in the non-Western world. No good can come from that.

If there is no way to hide your Canadian citizenship from Country X, then your only solution might be to avoid all travel there. Sometimes this is necessary. There is simply no way to predict what kind of problems they might give you, and nobody here can help you with those.

Like I said, I spoke to 3 lawyers. 1 of them said child automatically Canadian, 2 said has right to Citizenship. One of the lawyers went further to say the following:
-Some people chose to sponsor their child born abroad, bring them to Canada and naturalize, so that their grandchildren, should grandchildren be born abroad, are not caught by 1st generation limit.
-I had cases when naturalized citizen sponsored their child successfully.

This lawyer was based out of Vancouver, where I suspect a lot of Chinese immigrants are. As you know China doesn't allow dual citizenship.

In all due respect, I've found that most lawyers have outdated information on issues like this and hence their information is flat-out wrong. In principle your child will be a Canadian at birth as per the 2009 citizenship law. That's what the CIC website says although you will have to find the page yourself because I'm not going to look for it for you.

So, I stick to my guns until someone proves me otherwise. If you find this entertaining, it is your prerogative. I certainly don't, because this issue is very important to me.

There is nothing to prove. The 2009 law is clear. If you want to believe your child is NOT Canadian at birth, nobody can stop you. But don't start picking a fight with a dead horse and don't make it sound like this is anything more than academic entertainment.

You don't have an actual problem in practice here: Want to believe your child won't be Canadian? Fine! Don't say that he/she is Canadian until you get him/her out of Country X. In fact, without a Canadian passport nobody in Country X will be able to prove that he/she is Canadian.

 

[tracker_01]

This IS the main point. If you want to assert that your child is NOT Canadian at birth, then how can Country X border officials be sure he/she is? What information do they have that you don't?

It doesn't sound like you're seeking answers here. You just want others to tell you that you're right about what you already want to believe. If you want to believe your child will not be Canadian at birth, then just tell Country X border officials so and there should be no problem. They should allow the child to enter and leave the country freely without requiring him/her to renounce a citizenship that he/she doesn't actually have.

I think the real reason you're here is the fear that Country X border officials will have a problem with the fact that you and your child live in Canada, and will give you a hard time just for this fact alone. This is unfortunate and is a lot more common in today's world among naturalized citizens. But it's a problem nobody here can help you with. People who live in undeveloped countries (including border officers) will obviously be jealous of those that have managed to secure the right to live in the Western world and will do the only thing they can do: give naturalized citizens a hard time when they visit their former countries.

My suggestion for this kind of situation is this: if you and your child have to visit Country X, try not to disclose that you have citizenship elsewhere. Bragging about your Canadian citizenship at the very least gets you jealous mean stares almost anywhere in the non-Western world. No good can come from that.

If there is no way to hide your Canadian citizenship from Country X, then your only solution might be to avoid all travel there. Sometimes this is necessary. There is simply no way to predict what kind of problems they might give you, and nobody here can help you with those.

In all due respect, I've found that most lawyers have outdated information on issues like this and hence their information is flat-out wrong. In principle your child will be a Canadian at birth as per the 2009 citizenship law. That's what the CIC website says although you will have to find the page yourself because I'm not going to look for it for you.

There is nothing to prove. The 2009 law is clear. If you want to believe your child is NOT Canadian at birth, nobody can stop you. But don't start picking a fight with a dead horse and don't make it sound like this is anything more than academic entertainment.

You don't have an actual problem in practice here: Want to believe your child won't be Canadian? Fine! Don't say that he/she is Canadian until you get him/her out of Country X. In fact, without a Canadian passport nobody in Country X will be able to prove that he/she is.

OK. Thanks.

 

[thecoolguysam]

Look, try to understand my situation. I spoke to 3 lawyers and got different results. I spoke to CIC, they said they cannot answer because they are not allowed to give legal advice. Now, my only option is to talk to people who had actually done this. There are many countries that do not allow dual citizenship (e.g. China, India, etc.). Therefore, there must have been people who wanted to preserve their other citizenship on their child. The reason I posted here is: I thought there might be some members of the community who had actually done what I'm trying to achieve. If there are such people, please identify as such. Feel free to send me personal message if public discussion is not your thing.

So far, most folks here have referenced some material on official government websites. However, they do not realize that this "general" information is given such that it covers 99.9% of cases. Of course government website is going to say that child born to naturalized Canadian citizen abroad is Canadian, because 99.9% of people would choose their child to have Canadian citizenship. If they had stated: Child born abroad will have right to claim citizenship and this right needs to be actively claimed, it is just going to sound confusing. Hence, they simplify as much as possible.

At the end of the day, the government is bound by the law, and it seems that no one here has been able to convince me on legal basis that I'm wrong. I have provided references from the Act and previous court cases, and nobody seems to be able to prove me on legal basis that I'm wrong.

To prove my point, let's assume my child is born abroad and I do not claim his Canadian citizenship. Child does not come to Canada, and stays abroad for 2 years when I file for citizenship search (service offered by CIC form CIT 0058, costs $75). Do you think they are going to find any records? Of course not, because my child never exercised his right to a citizenship. So, I will have a paper from Canadian government stating that child is not Canadian.

Again, my main objective is to find someone who had actually done (or couldn't do) what I'm trying to do. If there is anyone in this community, please identify as such or send a private message to me.

Thanks.

There might be someone in this forum who might have gone through this but he/she might not have read your post.
The forum members including myself are people like you not lawyers so we can't give you professional advice. If there is someone who has/had situation like you can definitely answer if he/she is reading this post.

The only thing I can think is that you are Canadian Citizen and your child born abroad will be canadian citizen. If your other country does not allow dual citizenship then the child has to be canadian as the child has to be 18 years old in order to give up canadian citizenship. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.

 

[screech339]

There might be someone in this forum who might have gone through this but he/she might not have read your post.
The forum members including myself are people like you not lawyers so we can't give you professional advice. If there is someone who has/had situation like you can definitely answer if he/she is reading this post.

The only thing I can think is that you are Canadian Citizen and your child born abroad will be canadian citizen. If your other country does not allow dual citizenship then the child has to be canadian as the child has to be 18 years old in order to give up canadian citizenship. Please anyone correct me if I am wrong.

You are not wrong that the child would have to be 18 years or older in order to give it up. The problem is the OP's child will not be able to give it up if he/she wanted to. The child cannot renounce citizenship if it leads to being stateless. The child will not get Country X citizenship because child gave up Canadian citizenship voluntarily at age 18. The child would have to apply for Country X citizenship first. Country X would grant citizenship once he/she officially renounced canadian citizenship.

 

[marcus66502]

There might be someone in this forum who might have gone through this but he/she might not have read your post.
The forum members including myself are people like you not lawyers so we can't give you professional advice. If there is someone who has/had situation like you can definitely answer if he/she is reading this post.

Let's face it: He's not looking for any "professional" advice. He already knows the answer that people have repeated a dozen times already.

The reason he's started this thread is out of pure fear of the authorities in his own country. The title of this thread is actually misleading. It should be "How can I get my child safely out of my home country if the border authorities know we live in Canada."

Sorry to have to say this but if Country X border authorities are going to refuse exit to the OP and his child, it's not because they will have definite proof of the child's dual citizenship. They'll give them a hard time simply out of envy that they live in Canada. This is common in many parts of the world today and, unfortunately, nobody here can help the OP with that problem.

Sorry OP, but it seems like you're from a country where you can't safely disclose you live in Canada without facing problems. Dual citizenship has very little to do with those problems. It's just the fact that you live in Canada. So you'll just have to avoid travel there altogether. Best and simplest solution for anyone really.

 

[thecoolguysam]

Now let me ask you guys if that way it can help the OP but again i am not sure if Country X is India or not but its good if the OP can tell that.

I am a Canadian citizen, India does not allow dual citizenship. I have already renounced Indian Citizenship after obtaining Canadian Citizenship. Now if my child borns in India, he will be Canadian by birth even though he was born in India, he might won't get Indian Citizenship just because he is born there. Correct me if I am wrong? Will India allow him Indian Citizenship by birth?

 

[screech339]

Now let me ask you guys if that way it can help the OP but again i am not sure if Country X is India or not but its good if the OP can tell that.

I am a Canadian citizen, India does not allow dual citizenship. I have already renounced Indian Citizenship after obtaining Canadian Citizenship. Now if my child borns in India, he will be Canadian by birth even though he was born in India, he might won't get Indian Citizenship just because he is born there. Correct me if I am wrong? Will India allow him Indian Citizenship by birth?

OP explained that Country X allowed dual citizenship at one time and but now is no longer allowed any more. We can deduce from that info that it is not India.

 

[thecoolguysam]

OP explained that Country X allowed dual citizenship at one time and but now is no longer allowed any more. We can deduce from that info that it is not India.

Hmmm good catch!

By the way, I was reading the law on the following link which is irrelavant to this topic but I still thought to show it:


http://indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in/ic_generalinstruction.pdf

Every person born in India on or after 03.12.2004, shall be citizen of India provided both
of his/her parents are citizens of India or one of whose parents is a citizen of India and
the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of his/ her birth

It means that if both parents are foreigners then the child will not be a Indian Citizen

 

[tracker_01]

Let's face it: He's not looking for any "professional" advice. He already knows the answer that people have repeated a dozen times already.

The reason he's started this thread is out of pure fear of the authorities in his own country. The title of this thread is actually misleading. It should be "How can I get my child safely out of my home country if the border authorities know we live in Canada."

Sorry to have to say this but if Country X border authorities are going to refuse exit to the OP and his child, it's not because they will have definite proof of the child's dual citizenship. They'll give them a hard time simply out of envy that they live in Canada. This is common in many parts of the world today and, unfortunately, nobody here can help the OP with that problem.

Sorry OP, but it seems like you're from a country where you can't safely disclose you live in Canada without facing problems. Dual citizenship has very little to do with those problems. It's just the fact that you live in Canada. So you'll just have to avoid travel there altogether. Best and simplest solution for anyone really.

Dear marcus66502,

Please stop spreading misleading information. I already stated that when child born in Country X, he will have their citizenship and can safely leave using Country X's passport. However, when he comes to Canada, he is has to use either a) Canadian Passport if he is citizen b)PR card if he can get one + Country X passport.

Now, the issue becomes when child visits Country X next time, because if child is Canadian, border officials are going to find out, because he will not have any entry exit stamps in his Country X passport. As such, they are not going to let him leave, until one of the Citizenships renounced (i.e. stops being dual citizen because it is not allowed by law).

That is why it is important for me to find out if child is Canadian citizen or not. If he is not, then I can get PR card for him, if he is, then I cannot.

Title of the thread is valid, don't make up stories that are not true please.

Finally, I already shared with you, via private message, what Country X is. You can read for yourself and if you have question, please send it via private message to avoid misleading the public.

 

[marcus66502]

Dear marcus66502,
Now, the issue becomes when child visits Country X next time, because if child is Canadian, border officials are going to find out, because he will not have any entry exit stamps in his Country X passport. As such, they are not going to let him leave, until one of the Citizenships renounced (i.e. stops being dual citizen because it is not allowed by law).

Why does the child so desperately need to "visit" this Country X, next time? To parade the fact that he enjoys the right to live in Canada?

You say Country X border officials won't let your child leave until he renounces one of the citizenships because dual citizenship is not allowed. I'm sorry to have to say, but if this is the kind of country we're talking about then it should not be a problem avoiding travel there altogether. If this is the kind of trouble that you'll have when visiting "Country X", then I can't see any reason you'd go out of your way to travel there, unless it's just to brag that you're Canadian.

You're asking us to help you with problems that you'll create voluntarily. You should not create those problems in the first place, and then there'd be no need for this thread. Don't try to talk people down in here. They understand your situation perfectly. You want to travel to a third world country to show off your Canadian citizenship but don't want to face the problems that gets you into. Sorry, but sometimes, as the proverb goes, you just can't have your cake AND eat it.

This thread should be moved from the Citizenship category into a whole new category called "Weirdos with nothing better to do with their time." Indeed, the very question you've asked here is bizarre to say the least. "How to insure your child does not get Canadian citizenship" in a forum about acquiring Canadian citizenship? Seriously? Get a life dude!

 

[tracker_01]

Why does the child so desperately need to "visit" this Country X, next time? To parade the fact that he enjoys the right to live in Canada?

You say Country X border officials won't let your child leave until he renounces one of the citizenships because dual citizenship is not allowed. I'm sorry to have to say, but if this is the kind of country we're talking about then it should not be a problem avoiding travel there altogether. If this is the kind of trouble that you'll have when visiting "Country X", then I can't see any reason you'd go out of your way to travel there, unless it's just to brag that you're Canadian.

You're asking us to help you with problems that you'll create voluntarily. You should not create those problems in the first place, and then there'd be no need for this thread. Don't try to talk people down in here. They understand your situation perfectly. You want to travel to a third world country to show off your Canadian citizenship but don't want to face the problems that gets you into. Sorry, but sometimes, as the proverb goes, you just can't have have your cake AND eat it.

This thread should be moved from the Citizenship category into a whole new category called "Weirdos with nothing better to do with their time." Indeed, the very question you've asked here is bizarre to say the least. "How to insure your child does not get Canadian citizenship" in a forum about acquiring Canadian citizenship? Seriously? Get a life dude!

Marcus, for some reason you like to veer off the subject. So, I will stop responding unless you write something that pertains to my original question "Does child automatically become citizen, or he only has a right to Canadian citizenship". You seem to be of opinion that he is automatically citizen, that's fine. I respect your opinion as I do of others in his forum.

However, I will not tolerate when someone is getting personal, like you do in this case. The fact that I have to visit Country X is none of your business. My original question has nothing to do with Country X. All my questions are related to Canadian Law. So, stop trying to drag Country X into all of your posts. That is irrelevant. Stick to my original question. If you think I'm wrong, provide substantiating claim. I have provided court cases, tell me where I'm wrong. Thanks.

 

[dpenabill]

Overriding observations:

Ultimately what the laws of Country-X are and how they are applied and enforced, is what is important in the situation presented here. More regarding that below.

The child will be a Canadian citizen by descent, pursuant to Canadian law, at birth. So it will not be possible for the child to obtain family sponsored PR status (not without some fluke or some cheating). More about this below.

If the laws in Country-X have the impact the OP reports, the choices are limited and difficult, perhaps limited to, simply, choosing one country or the other.

If there is any chance of finding a way to approach this, other than choosing one country or the other, again, ultimately, it is what recourse might be available in Country-X that matters. My suggestion is to consult with appropriate legal professionals in Country-X. (After all, Canada is not the problem. Again, more below.)

. . . .my main objective is to find someone who had actually done (or couldn't do) what I'm trying to do.

My understanding of what you are referring to here, what you are trying to do, is to have your child acquire Canadian PR status despite the child's right to Canadian citizenship.

Why you want this, I gather, is twofold:

-- avoid the child having Canadian citizenship (because of anticipated consequences of this in Country-X)

-- but, nonetheless, getting the child status which will allow the child to live in Canada

The situation is unusual enough it will be difficult to find someone else with experience in very similar circumstances. Even if you did, their experience would not offer you much insight. There really is no doubt, under Canadian law, a child born abroad to a parent who has naturalized Canadian citizenship is a Canadian citizen by descent, as of the birth. Only Foreign Nationals are eligible for a grant of PR status (acknowledging, as well, that former PRs, in narrow revocation of citizenship cases, can be restored to PR status). The child is a Canadian citizen, not a Foreign National, and therefore is not eligible for PR status.

All some other person's experience in similar circumstances can possibly illustrate is that, indeed, the child is not eligible for PR status, which we already well-know, OR that somehow some individual manipulated the process to, in effect, get around the rules and managed, somehow, to have their child get PR status despite the child's Canadian citizenship. The latter should not happen. That does not mean it absolutely has not happened, but if it has, it has been by accident, mistake, or, in effect, cheating.

To be clear: this is about a child born after the 2009 changes in law, and about a child who has at least one parent who is a naturalized citizen at the time of the child's birth.

My original question: Is child born abroad to a naturalized Canadian citizen is automatically Canadian, or only has right to Canadian citizenship? If former, then he cannot be sponsored and brought to Canada as PR, if later he could. That is what I'm trying to find out.

So far as I can discern, there is no difference in the current Canadian law. At the least, if there is a difference it is a matter of practical access to rights and entitlements, which is more about the recognition of status, not about the acquisition of status. Under the current law, status by descent as prescribed by Section 3(1)(b) in the Citizenship Act is acquired at birth and in a case like this, given one parent is a citizen by naturalization, the child is not subject to any of the exceptions prescribed by Subsections 3(1.1) to 3(5) in the Citizenship Act (see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-1.html#h-3 at the Justice Laws website) even though the child is born outside Canada.

So, to be clear, under Canadian law, the child is a Canadian citizen by descent, and because one of the parents is a naturalized Canadian citizen, this citizenship is acquired at birth regardless where the child is born.

The more important question is what does this mean. What does this mean in Canadian law? What does this mean in the laws of Country-X?

Short answer: The child is, as a matter of Canadian law, a Canadian citizen by descent. What this means, what effect this has on the child's status in Country-X, is determined by the laws of Country-X, not by Canadian law.

Since the child is a Canadian citizen by descent, under Canadian law the child is NOT a Foreign National, and therefore is NOT eligible for Canadian PR status.

But Canadian law has no control over the child's status in Country-X (unless Country-X in effect defers to Canadian law, which is not at all likely).

The laws in Country-X do not control the child's status in Canada.

Thus, I essentially agree with the key element in the observations by links18 and marcus66502: what matters most in this situation is what the laws of Country-X prescribe. The OP needs to address his queries to an appropriate resource in Country-X, such as a licensed lawyer in Country-X.

Obviously I also concur in the post by Bs65:

. . . . the key point here is the OP cannot sponsor for PR given the fact the child will already be a citizen at birth and this will be obvious in any application by the fact the OP is a citizen and the father of a child born abroad. So any PR application would be pushed back as not valid for a citizen whether formally registered or not.

Canadian law, including status in Canada generally, which is not much relevant to the core problem or its resolution, but to be clear:

There really is no doubt the child subject of the query here will be a Canadian citizen at birth (by descent), according to Canadian law, and as such is not eligible for PR status.

Apparently the OP is not persuaded, and cites two cases (which, however, actually offer little or no assistance to the OP's case).

Gabriel Chan's lawsuit, as reported in a March 2016 Toronto Star article:

This is a lawsuit alleging an unlawful detention. The claim is premised on Gabriel Chan being a Canadian citizen by descent, acquired through his Canadian citizen father, and therefore entitled to be in Canada, even though Chan had no documentation (no Canadian status documents).

Gabriel Chan was born many, many years before the changes in law which were implemented in 2009 (with a number of tweak amendments since). So it offers little insight into the status of a child born after 2009.

While the different sides in that case frame the issue in different ways, the core issue is simply whether or not Gabriel Chan is a citizen by descent. If not, an exclusion order will be enforced. But if so, if he is a citizen by descent, he will have a legitimate claim for compensation for being unlawfully detained, at the least as of the date that CBSA was sufficiently apprised of the facts establishing Chan's citizenship.

A CBSA spokesperson asserted that Chan is not a Canadian citizen, but has a right to make an application for citizenship. I am not certain how the law, in force as of 2015 when these events took place, applies to someone born in 1987 or 1988 (Chan was 32 in March). My sense is that Chan's lawyers are right, and the CBSA spokesperson is not. Indeed, somewhat similar to the mother of Schneur Zalman Rabin (other case referenced by OP and discussed below), so long as the facts are as Chan alleges (that his parent was a naturalized Canadian citizen at the time of Chan's birth), Chan is entitled to apply for proof of citizenship, because he is a citizen, with no need to apply for citizenship (applying for proof of citizenship is not the same as applying for citizenship).

Either way, however, for a child born in 2016 or 2017, the law is clear, the child of a naturalized citizen acquires, at birth, citizenship by descent. Under Canadian law.



The Schneur Zalman Rabin case:

See http://canlii.ca/t/2d9bq

I am not sure why the OP thinks this case supports the proposition that his child will not automatically have Canadian citizenship.

Case 2: Rabin v. Canada under paragraph {27} where judge stated: "she was not a citizen prior to the coming into force of Bill C-37 on April 17, 2009, but was eligible to apply for proof of citizenship" You can read full decision here: (go to federal court decisions website and search for Rabin v. Canada)

Therefore, in my opinion, my child born abroad will not be automatically Canadian citizen, but will only have right to claim citizenship.

There is nothing in the case to indicate that the applicant, Schneur Zalman Rabin, had a parent who was a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth. And indeed, this is the reason he was denied a certificate of citizenship (denied proof of citizenship): there was nothing in the record to show he was a Canadian citizen by descent, since he was born abroad and did not have a parent who was a Canadian citizen at the time he was born.

The OP quotes a discussion, in the decision, about one of Rabin's parents who was entitled to Canadian citizenship at birth, but only if properly registered and she wasn't (under laws in effect prior to 1977), and then who later became entitled to apply for proof of citizenship pursuant to the 2009 changes in the law, that is long after Rabin's birth . . . thus, she was not a Canadian citizen at the time of Rabin's birth.

Rabin mischaracterizes his mother's citizenship, urging that ". . . because his mother is now considered a citizen by birth . . ." His mother is now considered a citizen by descent. In particular, she did not acquire such citizenship at birth, but rather by operation of law in 2009. The Federal Court rejected Rabin's theory of retroactivity. Thus, she was not a citizen at the time of Rabin's birth.

In any event, this case does not help the OP's situation.

It does, however, reinforce the distinction between applying for proof of citizenship (which the mother did and a certificate was issued) versus applying for citizenship.



Note regarding pre-2009 version versus post-2009 version:

By the way, it is not correct that regarding this issue and the governing statutory provision, that the pre-2009 version and the post-2009 version are identical.

Pre 2009 and Post 2009 Citizenship Acts are identical when it comes to this particular issue. Here is proof (you can compare for yourself online):

Pre 2009 Act: Part I The Right to Citizenship - 3 (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if (b) the person was born outside Canada after February 14, 1977 and at the time of his birth one of his parents, other than a parent who adopted him, was a citizen;

Post 2009 Act: Part I The Right to Citizenship - 3 (1) Subject to this Act, a person is a citizen if (b) the person was born outside Canada after February 14, 1977 and at the time of his birth one of his parents, other than a parent who adopted him, was a citizen;

So, they are same word for word. Therefore, those decisions would be applicable today. The only difference in the Post 2009 act is that they added a 1st generation limit under separate section: 3(3) which did not exist in Pre 2009 Act.

They are not the same. Why? Because there were many, many changes made in "the Act," the Citizenship Act, some having a big impact on the meaning, scope, and application of Section 3(1), including 3(1)(b).

In particular, the effect of the "subject to the Act" restriction in the pre-2009 version is not at all the same as the effect of the "subject to the Act" restriction in the post-2009 version. These terms have real meaning and real effect. This includes changes in procedural requirements.

Just Section 3 of the Citizenship Act itself was dramatically and extensively changed in 2009. Compare:

For pre-2009 version of Section 3 see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/section-3-20071223.html#wb-cont

For version of Section 3 applicable from 2009 to 2014, see http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/section-3-20090417.html#wb-cont

Note, for example, that after the 2009 changes took effect, the entirety of Subsection 3(1), including 3(1)(b), became subject to newly added provisions specifying when 3(1), again including 3(1)(b), is not applicable (see Subsection 3(3) and limitation of citizenship by descent to first generation).

Moreover, further, subsequent changes in 2014 and 2015, also specifically affect the meaning and application of Subsection 3(1)(b).

But there is no need to attempt unraveling all the changes and their impact on what Subsection 3(1)(b) means and how it is applied; it is clear enough that citizenship by descent is now acquired at birth.



More in-depth observations about why the real questions are about the laws of Country-X:

The OP's queries are, essentially, about two issues:

(1) The child's status in Canada, as prescribed by Canadian law, which can affect the child's capacity to live in Canada.

(2) The child's status in Country-X, which is entirely a matter of the law in Country-X even though it may be affected by the child's status in Canada.

The simple answer to the first of these issues, as discussed above, is that the child is a Canadian citizen by descent, which means the child is entitled to enter into and live in Canada (also means the child is not eligible for PR status). This will not necessarily facilitate actual access to the entitlements legal residents of Canada have, including for example a travel document which would be necessary for traveling to Canada if the child leaves Canada. . . unless the parent, on behalf of the child, formally applies for and obtains a certificate of citizenship. Thus, from health care to education, and ability to travel abroad and then return to Canada, while the child is entitled to all that a citizen is entitled to, to actually obtain these entitlements the child will need to obtain a certificate of citizenship. To do that, the parent of the child would need to apply, on the child's behalf, for proof of citizenship.

The answer to the second issue has virtually nothing to do with Canadian law, but rather is wholly determined by the law of Country-X . . . so to resolve this issue, the OP needs to go to a proper resource in Country-X.



Reminder regarding dual citizenship:

With perhaps some (very few) exceptions, dual citizenship is not a formal or official status. It is merely descriptive of the recognition that some individuals might have citizenship status in more than one country. Thus, typically, there is no prohibition against "dual citizenship," but rather, different countries have different laws governing the citizenship status of individuals and some, for example, like Canada did until the 70s, prohibit its citizens from having any other citizenship. But how this is implemented and enforced varies greatly from one country to another.

Thus, the force and effect of Canadian law is not affected or even influenced by the fact the child has or might have citizenship in any other country. In particular, the fact of any such citizenship has no impact on the child's status in Canada. (There is a technical exception in the current law governing grounds for revoking citizenship based on the commission of certain crimes, the scope of which is affected by having another country's citizenship; this is likely to be repealed per Bill C-6.)

How it is in Country-X, however, could be another matter. That depends on the laws of Country-X, not Canadian law. Thus, for the OP's situation in contrast, this means that what will determine the child's status in Country-X is dictated by the laws of Country-X rather than the laws or practices of Canada.

Again, in those countries which prohibit their citizens from having citizenship in other countries, the specifics of the prohibition and how it is implemented and enforced varies greatly from one country to another. Thus, one needs to know precisely what it is that Country-X prohibits, and how that prohibition is applied and enforced, to know what impact there is on the OP's child.



The laws in Country-X:

Both links18 and marcus66502 hit the main keys: what matters is what the law is, and how it is applied and enforced, in Country-X; and there are other posts alluding to what might be possible in Country-X, and that is indeed what will control the child's status.

Until a recent post, the OP described the situation in simplistic terms:

Country X does not allow dual citizenship.

Again, what is ordinarily meant when it is said that a particular country does not allow dual citizenship, is that the country prohibits its citizens from having citizenship in any other country. (Some countries, however, also prohibit travelers from using or possessing more than one country's passport.)

But again, there is actually a great deal of variation in what is, precisely, prohibited, and how that is applied and enforced.

It is far more common, for example, for countries to prohibit its citizens from acquiring another country's citizenship . . . but even this is applied and enforced in different ways.

. . . I already stated that when child born in Country X, he will have their citizenship and can safely leave using Country X's passport. However, when he comes to Canada, he is has to use either a) Canadian Passport if he is citizen b)PR card if he can get one + Country X passport.

Now, the issue becomes when child visits Country X next time, because if child is Canadian, border officials are going to find out, because he will not have any entry exit stamps in his Country X passport. As such, they are not going to let him leave, until one of the Citizenships renounced (i.e. stops being dual citizen because it is not allowed by law).

And indeed, the OP here indicates that Country-X treats this matter differently depending on . . . well, it is not clear how it works, but apparently it is OK for citizens of Country-X to also have citizenship in another country, so long as they had both citizenships before a certain date. But otherwise, if a citizen of Country-X travels to Country-X and it appears that person also has citizenship in another country, then Country-X will require the individual to renounce one citizenship or the other.

As already noted, and especially given the nature of the dilemma otherwise, my suggestion is to consult with a legal professional in Country-X to see if there is any recourse there.

Perhaps the OP is more capable of determining, based on the OP's own research and analysis, how the laws work in Country-X, compared to clearly not doing so well with Canadian law, and is quite certain what the law is in Country-X and how it works. If so, however, the dilemma is a difficult one, having to choose one country or the other. So indeed, if Country-X works the way the OP reports, that is what it comes down to, having to choose one country or the other.

 

[tracker_01]

Dear dpenabill,

I sincerely appreciate your response and this is kind of response I was looking for. If I may, I will stick to the legal side of things and I have couple of comments regarding 2 cases I mentioned:

Let's assume that you are right and when child is born abroad to a naturalized citizen, then child is automatically citizen:

a) Mr. Chan's case: As you noted CBSA made a statement that he is not citizen, but rather has right to apply to citizenship. I spoke to one of Mr. Chan's lawyers, who also told me that Mr. Chan was not automatically citizen but had a right. The reason Mr. Chan sued CBSA, according to the article, is not that he disagreed with CBSA on their statement that he is not a citizen, but rather they didn't release him quickly once they knew that he had a right to the citizenship. This is why he sued CBSA. Having said this, do you think it is reasonable for me to claim that, based on this case, child is not automatically citizen, but rather has right to the citizenship? Also, the Citizenship Act portion that pertains to citizenship of child born abroad 3.(1).(b) has not changed since 1977 (from what I can tell and please correct me if I'm wrong). Hence, my argument: i) This particular provision of the act has not changed since 1977, ii) Mr. Chan was not automatically citizen, doesn't this lead to believe that child is not automatically citizen but rather has right to apply for citizenship?

b) Rabin case: My core question is: Rabin's father had his citizenship restored to his birthday. Therefore, if you are right that child is automatically citizen, shouldn't Rabin's father be automatically citizen at birth? If yes, then Rabin who was born pre-2009 changes took effect, should also be citizen by virtue of her father being automatically citizen at birth (because pre-2009 act allowed 2nd generation canadians to get their citizenship). Since, courts did not give citizenship to Rabin, it is safe to say that the father was not citizen when Rabin was born. But how is this possible if you are right that citizenship is gained automatically at birth? Therefore, I concluded that father was not automatically citizen when he was born, but rather he just had a right to claim citizenship. He needed to exercise his right to become citizen, which he did in 2010. This means that father became citizen in 2010, not at birth). Since father became citizen in 2010, he was barred from passing citizenship onto Rabin by 2009 changes in the Act.

Please let me know if I'm wrong in interpretation of these 2 cases.

Thanks.

 

[links18]

And OP should be careful someone doesn't report him to competent child protection authorities for conspiring to deprive a minor Canadian citizen of his/her rights as a Canadian.