"Children Born Abroad to Canadians, May End Up Lost Canadians"

[dpenabill]

The point is that while there is no limits or restrictions for any Canadians to leave Canada, to live or work in another country, it doesn't change the fact that 1st generation Canadians born still REQUIRE visas to do this, unlike a 2nd generation Canadian who doesn't need visa to live / work outside Canada (ie 2nd generation Canadian EU citizen).

There is a difference in Canadians having rights to leave and enter Canada and Canadian having rights to work / live in the country outside Canada.

Canadian born (no dual) still need a visa or special permission to be able to stay longer than the visitor limit. 2nd generation Canadian with eu citizen doesn't require this. They can live and work longer than visitor stay limit without any visas or special permission, using their eu citizenship passports.

The point is that Canada does NOT in anyway restrict or limit the rights of any Canadian citizen to live or work abroad. Period.

Any rights some Canadian citizens might have to work in other countries which other Canadian citizens do not have, has nothing at all to do with Canadian law. None whatsoever.

Canada can engage in treaties with other countries which afford some Canadians the right to work in the respective other country. BUT there is NO distinction in this based on how the individual obtained citizenship; all Canadian citizens are essentially equal (so far as their Canadian citizenship has any effect).

You are way way way off on this. What advantages a person may have due to citizenship in a EU country is about the advantages or benefits of having THAT country's citizenship. It is not about how the individual became a Canadian citizen. It is NOT prescribed by Canadian law or determined by having one so-called-type of Canadian citizenship versus another.

Canada does not dictate what status individuals will have in other countries. Period. Canadian status may affect whether or when a person can live or work in another country, but that is based on what that other country allows. And again, while the latter can be part of an agreement with Canada (treaty), if so, how Canadian citizenship was obtained has NO relevance, there is NO difference whether Canadian by birth in Canada, by descent, or by Naturalization.

Again, scores and scores of Canadians born in Canada work and live abroad. The idea that somehow there is a different kind of Canadian citizenship for some which limits or restricts their right to live or work abroad is simply ludicrous.

If you are saying a person with dual citizenship, say a Canadian who also has Somalian or Syrian or Columbian citizenship, can work or live in Somalia or Syria or Columbia without having to obtain a visa . . . again, that is totally dependent on the laws of Somalia, Syria, or Columbia. In particular, Canadian law, the nature and rights and benefits Canada prescribes for citizens of Canada, does nothing, nothing at all, to distinguish one Canadian citizen's rights to work in Somalia, Syria, or Columbia, compared to any other Canadian citizen. It is, simply, not about Canadian citizenship.

 

[screech339]

BUT there is NO distinction in this based on how the individual obtained citizenship; all Canadian citizens are essentially equal

Tell that to links18. He/she seems to think that 2nd generation Canadians are 2nd class because they cannot pass on citizenship to their children.

I didn't want to bring this ability to work / live outside canada as a nice perk as a reminder for those who believe 2nd generation canadians are 2nd class. While there are millions of non-dual Canadians that do not have this nice ability to stay outside Canadian permanently without visa requirement. Links18 doesn't want to acknowledge this fact. Yes, Canada has treaties with other countries but the other countries is not obligated to allow Canadians inside their border. No difference than Canada is not obligated to allow foreign nationals into its own borders. Unlike a 2nd generation Canadian, this person can live / work in country with other acquired citizenship, whether this person is Somalian, Syrian, or Columbian. It doesn't change this fact that these people you listed as example can live and work in their countries. That also goes for those with eu citizenship as well.

 

[Leon]

The point is that while there is no limits or restrictions for any Canadians to leave Canada, to live or work in another country, it doesn't change the fact that 1st generation Canadians born still REQUIRE visas to do this, unlike a 2nd generation Canadian who doesn't need visa to live / work outside Canada (ie 2nd generation Canadian EU citizen).

Having dual citizenship has nothing to do with being Canadian born or citizen by descent because a Canadian born child can have parents who have different citizenship(s) that they may pass on to their child and a citizen by descent may have been born to Canadian parents who just happened to be outside Canada and this child might only have Canadian citizenship.

 

[alphazip]

The simple point that links18 is making is that persons who are born (or naturalized) in Canada have the advantage of being able to pass their citizenship on their children born abroad, while those children born abroad do not have that ability. As link18 has stated, this restriction may be desirable (or it may not be), but that's not what is being debated. He is just pointing out the reality of the situation.

Some countries (e.g. Italy) believe in passing citizenship on from one generation to the next indefinitely. Canada (under the Conservatives) chose a different route, and I don't sense a strong desire to change things. In fact, when I tell people that I'm a Canadian because my father was, they seem to be surprised that even that is allowed!

My own feeling is that the law should be tweaked to allow citizens by descent who really want to live in Canada, to do so.

 

[Leon]

Some countries (e.g. Italy) believe in passing citizenship on from one generation to the next indefinitely.

They do. I know an American who claimed Italian citizenship based on his grandmother. She had immigrated to the US. Her children never tried to claim Italian citizenship but he could. However, he did say there was a legal soup about it and they needed quite a lot of documents.

 

[screech339]

The simple point that links18 is making is that persons who are born (or naturalized) in Canada have the advantage of being able to pass their citizenship on their children born abroad, while those children born abroad do not have that ability. As link18 has stated, this restriction may be desirable (or at may not be), but that's not what is being debated. He is just pointing out the reality of the situation.

Some countries (e.g. Italy) believe in passing citizenship on from one generation to the next indefinitely. Canada (under the Conservatives) chose a different route, and I don't sense a strong desire to change things. In fact, when I tell people that I'm a Canadian because my father was, people seem to be surprised that even that is allowed!

My own feeling is that the law should be tweaked to allow citizens by descent who really want to live in Canada, to do so.

Actually the limiting of generational passing of citizenship was done under the liberal government through retention rule under 1967 citizenship law. The liberals did not want unlimited ability to pass on citizenship for generations. The conservatives did not take a "different" route. They simply re enforced the limit that the liberals wanted in the 1967 citizenship law.

This is no difference from the conservatives reenforcing the voting ban on Canadians who resided outside Canada 5 years or longer, a liberal bill passed under chretien.

 

[foodie69]

Making news right now..

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/it-took-my-breath-away-law-strips-b-c-woman-of-canadian-citizenship-1.3078906

 

[screech339]

Making news right now..

http://bc.ctvnews.ca/it-took-my-breath-away-law-strips-b-c-woman-of-canadian-citizenship-1.3078906

At least this news article didn't say she is stateless like the star did for the same woman.

 

[links18]

The simple point that links18 is making is that persons who are born (or naturalized) in Canada have the advantage of being able to pass their citizenship on their children born abroad, while those children born abroad do not have that ability. As link18 has stated, this restriction may be desirable (or it may not be), but that's not what is being debated. He is just pointing out the reality of the situation.

Some countries (e.g. Italy) believe in passing citizenship on from one generation to the next indefinitely. Canada (under the Conservatives) chose a different route, and I don't sense a strong desire to change things. In fact, when I tell people that I'm a Canadian because my father was, they seem to be surprised that even that is allowed!

My own feeling is that the law should be tweaked to allow citizens by descent who really want to live in Canada, to do so.

Thanks. Yes, that is the point. The simple fact is that some Canadians have more options open to them based simply on the circumstances of their birth, which they do not control. It is debatable as to whether or not the inability to pass on citizenship is a property of the parent or something that pertains to the child, but the fact remains that Canadian citizens are differently situated under the law according to factors they do not control. Call it what you want.

 

[links18]

Yes, you do know. That is why there are little differences between 1st generation and 2nd generation. You do realized that the purposes of creating 1st and 2nd generation Canadians is to prevent generational passing on of citizenship.

I'm all for equality as well. But when a 2nd generation Canadian can live and work outside Canada in comparison to 1st generation that's not equality either.

So it goes back to this reality:

1st generation Canadian cannot live and work outside Canada but can pass on citizenship.

2nd generation Canadian can live / work inside and outside Canada but cannot pass on citizenship.

We basically gave 2nd generation a perk that 1st generation Canadian cannot have. I think this perk is more than generous for the compensation of the lack passing on citizenship.

Factually wrong and a total non-sequitur.

From what I can tell from you, you want unlimited ability to pass on citizenship for generations, in other words, create "Canadians of Convenience". Sacrifices have to made somewhere in order to prevent passing citizenship on for generations outside Canada. So until you have a better idea in stopping citizenship from being passed on for generations, there is no need to discuss this 2nd class BS that you are creating in your mind.

Its not about what I want. I am only pointing out the reality of the situation that some Canadians are differently situated by the operation of Canadian law due to nothing other than the circumstances of their birth. Call it what you want to. Again, it may be practically necessary or desirable from a policy perspective (or not), but that doesn't change the reality that Canadian law treats Canadian citizens (or their offspring) differently based on where they were born. Clearly, the families in this article do not agree with this from a policy perspective and are working to change it. Its a political issue at this point--but given our PM's pledge that "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian," you would think that they might try to address this at some point. He opened the door for this. Once he ran (and won) a political campaign based in part on the equality of Canadian citizenship, it wouldn't be long before someone raised the issue of the 1st generation limit (and the retention rules) as a violation of that equality. Minister McCallum better start thinking about how to respond to these parents, because I doubt they are going away.

 

[screech339]

Factually wrong and a total non-sequitur.

Its not about what I want. I am only pointing out the reality of the situation that some Canadians are differently situated by the operation of Canadian law due to nothing other than the circumstances of their birth. Call it what you want to. Again, it may be practically necessary or desirable from a policy perspective (or not), but that doesn't change the reality that Canadian law treats Canadian citizens (or their offspring) differently based on where they were born. Clearly, the families in this article do not agree with this from a policy perspective and are working to change it. Its a political issue at this point--but given our PM's pledge that "A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian," you would think that they might try to address this at some point. He opened the door for this. Once he ran (and won) a political campaign based in part on the equality of Canadian citizenship, it wouldn't be long before someone raised the issue of the 1st generation limit (and the retention rules) as a violation of that equality. Minister McCallum better start thinking about how to respond to these parents, because I doubt they are going away.

McCallum better start thinking about the implication or consequences of having unlimited generational passing of citizenship. He should remember the furor of the Canadians over what the Lebanon-Canadians did during the lebanon conflicts and after the conflicts ends.

 

[links18]

McCallum better start thinking about the implication or consequences of having unlimited generational passing of citizenship. He should remember the furor of the Canadians over what the Lebanon-Canadians did during the lebanon conflicts and after the conflicts ends.

"A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian EXCEPT....."

 

[screech339]

"A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian EXCEPT....."

Except when he/she is convicted of spying?
Except when he/she is convicted of citizenship fraud?
Except when he/she failed to retain citizenship by age 28?

These laws were in place for 32 years before 2009 law came about and yet no one said a peep about it.

 

[links18]

Except when he/she is convicted of spying?
Except when he/she is convicted of citizenship fraud?
Except when he/she failed to retain citizenship by age 28?

These laws were in place for 32 years before 2009 law came about and yet no one said a peep about it.

And then the current PM ran a campaign on the equality of citizenship. Of course, It might be the case that some Canadians are more equal than others, I guess.

 

[mwabu1976]

The easy solution to this is to have your kids born in Canada.

So, people can live outside Canada and just come back to Canada to give birth. In that case, it is clear that the 2009 law is not serving its purpose.

The goal of the 2009 is not to have the citizen transferred from generation to the next if they are not having ties to Canada. However, if we get specific to the case that is mentioned in the Globe & Mail in the first post, we can see that the 2009 law is not working because that family has ties with Canada and they left Canada to work for only 4 years in the US. Why their son which was born in that time end up in different situation than his brother who was born in Canada when the family came back.???

I know many people that loved to stay in Canada and never leave but being jobless for years is a reason that force them to leave.

I'm Civil engineer, I work where ever there is construction projects. If the construction company got a construction job in the US, then I move to the US. once the project is finished, I move to the next project which can be in US, Canada or any where. So, does my job cut my ties to Canada?

It is clear .. The 2009 law needs to be fixed and improved. We want citizens that are loyal to our Canada but we don't want to heart our loyal citizens in the same time.