Child permanent residence

[screech339]

Keeslo,

Unfortunately Canada is being treated as a stepping stone to the US. A lot of people immigrated to Canada for the sole purpose to going to the US as they cannot go to US directly. Too hard for them to immigrate to US from their home country so they take the next easy step. Canada.

I know a couple that came from Kuwait and wanted to move out of the middle east so that their female children have a better chance at life. They applied to all the european countries as they didn't care where as long as they were out of kuwait. They were denied in every one of them. Canada was the easiest to immigrate due to the points system. The point system is flawed as it gives points to university degrees that Canada don't even recognized its credential anyway. (This is why you see a lot of doctors/engineers/Bachelors drive cabs/become janiors, etc). Thankfully the point system is replaced by a worker skills system. This will help make immigrating to Canada harder and take in needed skilled immigrants based on current work demands.

Screech339

 

[keesio]

screech - yeah, I'm cool with some additional safe guards to help avoid exploitation, or at least make it harder. But the rule has to be reasonable. For example, I like the new "you must stay together for 2 years" conditional PR rule. Some people complained it was a rights violation but I think it will help address some of the "marriage of convenience" issues and at least the sponsored PR cannot bail on their spouse the minute they get PR (now they will have to wait 2 years to bail lol). Now the law where you have to be born in Canada to be able to pass it on is not reasonable to me. I do think there should be some residency requirement of a certain length but it should not be only by birth.

 

[screech339]

screech - yeah, I'm cool with some additional safe guards to help avoid exploitation, or at least make it harder. But the rule has to be reasonable. For example, I like the new "you must stay together for 2 years" conditional PR rule. Some people complained it was a rights violation but I think it will help address some of the "marriage of convenience" issues and at least the sponsored PR cannot bail on their spouse the minute they get PR (now they will have to wait 2 years to bail lol). Now the law where you have to be born in Canada to be able to pass it on is not reasonable to me. I do think there should be some residency requirement of a certain length but it should not be only by birth.

Although the passing of citizenship because of birth of one parent seem unreasonable to you. I still prefer this option however with conditions on birth rights to citizenship. I would like Canada to adopt the British amendment to citizenship by birth. Canada can still give citizenship by birth on condition that one of the parents is Canadian and/or PR holder. This would eliminate the birth tourism to Canada.

This way citizenship by birth in Canada is not always automatic as the current law stands now.

Screech339

 

[keesio]

I would like Canada to adopt the British amendment to citizenship by birth. Canada can still give citizenship by birth on condition that one of the parents is Canadian and/or PR holder. This would eliminate the birth tourism to Canada.

This I can agree to. It would fall in-line with most of the other developed countries in the world.

 

[frege]

screech - yeah, I'm cool with some additional safe guards to help avoid exploitation, or at least make it harder. But the rule has to be reasonable. For example, I like the new "you must stay together for 2 years" conditional PR rule. Some people complained it was a rights violation but I think it will help address some of the "marriage of convenience" issues and at least the sponsored PR cannot bail on their spouse the minute they get PR (now they will have to wait 2 years to bail lol). Now the law where you have to be born in Canada to be able to pass it on is not reasonable to me. I do think there should be some residency requirement of a certain length but it should not be only by birth.

Keesio, I think if the purpose is to address marriage fraud, then this rule should only be applied if the marriage was fraudulent.

In the US, there is a conditional PR rule. After two years together, they re-evaluate whether the marriage was genuine. At this point, if you've been living together, you prove that. If you haven't been living together because of a breakdown of the relationship, they will look at whether the marriage was genuine. Obviously, they look more closely at these cases, but if you show good evidence that the marriage was genuine when you came to the US, and then you separated, then that's totally legal.

I don't find it acceptable that anybody should be locked into a relationship in order to continue their life in Canada, once they've already established themselves here (a job, children perhaps, etc.) I know there are exceptions for battered wives, but honestly I don't think that if you leave your spouse for reasons besides violence, it means you were necessarily dishonest when you came to Canada. It would be preferable if Canada simply took a fresh look at these relationships, but still not penalize anybody who was honest starting out.

 

[frege]

Although the passing of citizenship because of birth of one parent seem unreasonable to you. I still prefer this option however with conditions on birth rights to citizenship. I would like Canada to adopt the British amendment to citizenship by birth. Canada can still give citizenship by birth on condition that one of the parents is Canadian and/or PR holder. This would eliminate the birth tourism to Canada.

This way citizenship by birth in Canada is not always automatic as the current law stands now.

Screech339

I find it unacceptable that there should be restrictions on BOTH ways of obtaining citizenship (place of birth or parentage). Either a country believes citizenship is mainly from your parents, or that it is mainly by birth in the country. It makes NO SENSE to place restrictions on both. If you do that, then there will be people who should have no citizenship at all according to this logic.

My view is that citizenship by birth should be automatic, as it is in almost all countries in the Western hemisphere.

 

[screech339]

I think citizenship by birth should be automatic, as it is in almost all countries in the Western hemisphere.

Western hemisphere has this law to encourage people to immigrate there from eastern hemisphere from early settlements. Now that the western hemisphere has become quite advanced, particularly Canada and US. They can still attract immigrants to Canada and US without the automatic citizenship by birth appeal. Plus the birth by jus soli was meant at the time to separate citizens born there from being called British, French, Spanish subjects.

Screech339

 

[keesio]

Keesio, I think if the purpose is to address marriage fraud, then this rule should only be applied if the marriage was fraudulent.

In the US, there is a conditional PR rule. After two years together, they re-evaluate whether the marriage was genuine. At this point, if you've been living together, you prove that. If you haven't been living together because of a breakdown of the relationship, they will look at whether the marriage was genuine. Obviously, they look more closely at these cases, but if you show good evidence that the marriage was genuine when you came to the US, and then you separated, then that's totally legal.

I don't find it acceptable that anybody should be locked into a relationship in order to continue their life in Canada, once they've already established themselves here (a job, children perhaps, etc.) I know there are exceptions for battered wives, but honestly I don't think that if you leave your spouse for reasons besides violence, it means you were necessarily dishonest when you came to Canada. It would be preferable if Canada simply took a fresh look at these relationships, but still not penalize anybody who was honest starting out.

If I remember correctly, the law mostly came into existence at the insistence of a group representing people who have been abandoned by their spouse after landing and they are on the hook for 3 years in regards to financial responsibilities.

Anyway the issue is how to prove if a marriage is genuine. The best way is if you have been married for awhile. But then again those people are exempt from the conditional rule (also people with kids I believe). It applies only for people not married for at least 2 years. The new rule is a much better compromise than the one where you have to be married for awhile before you can even apply. And it makes sense to me if that marriage breaks down, the sponsored person may have to leave. I mean their gateway into Canada was their sponsor. Without that sponsor, they would not have entered Canada.

 

[frege]

If I remember correctly, the law mostly came into existence at the insistence of a group representing people who have been abandoned by their spouse after landing and they are on the hook for 3 years in regards to financial responsibilities.

Anyway the issue is how to prove if a marriage is genuine. The best way is if you have been married for awhile. But then again those people are exempt from the conditional rule (also people with kids I believe). It applies only for people not married for at least 2 years. The new rule is a much better compromise than the one where you have to be married for awhile before you can even apply. And it makes sense to me if that marriage breaks down, the sponsored person may have to leave. I mean their gateway into Canada was their sponsor. Without that sponsor, they would not have entered Canada.

You have time to become established in the community in two years. I don't think you should be uprooted through no fault of your own. If you were honest when you came, you should be able to stay.

I'd like to get away from the idea that being in Canada is this wonderful privilege that people should have to jump through a million hoops for. I love Canada, but I don't think Canada has anything to gain by turning itself into a fortress. I think it becomes really excessive when people with very good reasons to be here end up waiting years so we can keep a handful of cheaters out. Now legitimate people can be kicked out too with this conditional PR.

 

[frege]

Although the passing of citizenship because of birth of one parent seem unreasonable to you. I still prefer this option however with conditions on birth rights to citizenship. I would like Canada to adopt the British amendment to citizenship by birth. Canada can still give citizenship by birth on condition that one of the parents is Canadian and/or PR holder. This would eliminate the birth tourism to Canada.

This way citizenship by birth in Canada is not always automatic as the current law stands now.

Screech339

I don't know that I believe this is the only reason. Canada had restrictive immigration policies, including the so-called "Chinese Head Tax" for a long period of its history, yet retained birthright citizenship. Similarly for the U.S.

I think an equally important reason is that the American republics were founded on democratic ideals of equality.

Here are a couple of quotes on this topic from an article in the Harvard Human Rights Journal.

http://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Culliton-Gonzalez.pdf

Although the majority of the world’s sovereign nations may not provide birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants, the Western Hemisphere is home to thirty that do. This is not a trivial number. The great majority, or over 85 percent, of sovereign nations in the Americas provide birthright citizenship. Why are the Americas so different from the rest of the world? It may be that the granting of fundamental citizenship rights by virtue of being born in the territory of a sovereign nation developed precisely because the history of modern nation-building and independence in the Americas is a history of immigration. But birthright citizenship also developed because American principles of democracy and
individual rights were purposefully tied to independence from Europe.

And the case of Argentina, which has had heavy immigration from poorer Latin American countries, is particularly interesting:

More recently, Argentina’s retraction and subsequent restitution of birthright citizenship shows the relevance of human rights law to the birthright citizenship debate. Argentine migration policy became restrictive during the era of military dictatorships (1976-1983). Provisions for equality and human rights for immigrants are found as far back as the statements of Juan
Bautista Alberdi, whose political writings were the basis for the 1853 Constitution. Argentine constitutional expert Erica Gorbak has found that birthright citizenship was first established in 1869, through Law No. 346; that law was then modified to retract birthright citizenship when the country entered a period of dictatorship in 1978. When democracy was reestablished in 1983, Argentine birthright citizenship was re-established, and became part of the constitution in 1994. Currently in Argentina, one of the reasons for providing equal rights for all immigrants, including from neighboring Latin American nations, was Argentina’s original founding philosophy, “Gobernar es poblar” (“To govern is to populate”). Although the original philosophy served to successfully encourage European migration, today, based upon human rights principles, it applies to all immigrants to Argentina.

So Argentina retracted birthright citizenship when it became a dictatorship, but then restored it when it became a democracy again, and even entrenched it in its constitution.

The same article talks about how in many other countries in the Americas, birthright citizenship was tied to the idea of ending slavery and establishing equal rights for all, in a break from Europe.

The article questions the legality under Inter-American international law of the U.S. withdrawing birthright citizenship, although I can't explain the legal arguments to you.

 

[screech339]

I wasn't asking to repeal the birthright of citizenship of Canada. That will never happen in Canada's lifetime. Too many people will vote against that. I was only asking to add conditions to the birthrights not repeal it. Adding the conditions is a lot easier than repealing it outright.

Screech339

 

[frege]

I wasn't asking to repeal the birthright of citizenship of Canada. That will never happen in Canada's lifetime. Too many people will vote against that. I was only asking to add conditions to the birthrights not repeal it. Adding the conditions is a lot easier than repealing it outright.

Screech339

All these countries have automatic birthright citizenship, as a matter of principle.

What exactly makes a newborn a citizen of a country, in your opinion? Is it where the child is born? Or who its parents are?

There's one answer that is obviously NOT possible, and that's "neither." If you start attaching conditions, then in effect that is what you are answering. You can attach conditions to one, but not both.

 

[screech339]

All these countries have automatic birthright citizenship, as a matter of principle.

What exactly makes a newborn a citizen of a country, in your opinion? Is it where the child is born? Or who its parents are?

There's one answer that is obviously NOT possible, and that's "neither." If you start attaching conditions, then in effect that is what you are answering. You can attach conditions to one, but not both.

Unless the birthright of citizenship is written in the constitution itself (like the 14th amendment of US constitution) and your only argument is "it is a matter of principle", it is a poor defence of an argument. Since it is not written in the constitution, citizenship laws can be revised. If it is a matter of prinicple, then we should all accept quebec value charter as "it is a matter of prinicple". Just because quebec introduced the charter out of "a matter of principle". I have to agree with the quebec charter (which I don't) according to you.

The citizenship laws have been revised already and can be revised again if the people calls for it. If the people wants the government to repeal the birth right of citizenship then the government must answer to them.

Also are you saying Canada cannot look after themselves and makes their own rules in terms of governing ourselves or we just play follow the leaders of what do other countries in the western hemisphere are doing just because they have the same laws. According to you, every country in the western hemisphere must have federal income tax as this is not the case. There are a few countries that are income tax free on this side of the world. These tax free countries must start implimenting income tax because Canada/US and others are doing it too. I mean who cares what these other countries laws are. Their laws doesn't affect us nor do their laws dictate how we do our own laws. Whatever the other countries do to their laws, that's their business, not ours. And vis versa, what we do with our laws is our business, not theirs.

If we want to change our citizenship laws, that is people of Canada business to decide. Not US, not Mexico, not other countries of the western hemisphere.

Screech339

 

[keesio]

I think it becomes really excessive when people with very good reasons to be here end up waiting years so we can keep a handful of cheaters out. Now legitimate people can be kicked out too with this conditional PR.

Unfortunately all it takes is a handful of bad apples to ruin it for all. It's always the case. I am subject to US' draconian tax laws for overseas citizens (the only developed country in the world to have this) because the US govt desire to crack down on a few tax cheats. So they have a blanket rule to make it harder on all to try and catch the few people using tricks to hide foreign assets. In the US, they are (trying to) enact stricter gun laws for the good of all even though the vast majority of gun owners do not commit any gun related crimes. Gun fans argue why punish the vast majority for the crimes of a few? That's why I vent more at the bad apples than the law itself. The law comes about because of the bad apples.

 

[screech339]

If your argument of "its a matter of principle" then we shouldn't be paying income tax today. It should have been ended after the world wars since it was enacted to pay for the war effort. It hasn't been repealed since then. The principle of the income tax was to support the war as the income tax was suppose to be temporary. And yet here we are still paying income tax to this day.