I'm hoping the wisdom of this board can help me see what I seem to fail to understand. I recently applied for a Canadian citizenship certificate for myself and my 17-year old daughter. The particulars: I was born in 1965 in the U.S. to Canadian-born Canadian citizens. My daughter was born in 1998 in the U.S. My citizenship certificate was granted, and my daughter’s was denied, with the explanation that I was not a Canadian citizen at the time of her birth.
I understand that Bill C-37 prevents citizens from passing down citizenship to their children born abroad after one generation. However, my reading of this bill is that this applies only to children born after 2009. From the C-37 legislative summary:
“This new rule cutting off citizenship after one generation born abroad is only applicable to people born after the rule comes into effect. People born before the rule comes into effect and who are second- or subsequent generation Canadians born abroad retain their existing Canadian citizenship (new section 3(4)). In fact, their position is improved under Bill C-37 as they are no longer subject to the requirement to register and retain their citizenship by age 28.”
From the same publication, regarding my not being a Canadian citizen at the time of my daughter’s birth: “In general terms, Bill C-37 ensures that citizenship is restored to “lost Canadians” retroactively, either to the time it was lost, or for those who never have been citizens in the first place, to birth. These retroactive provisions fill in “gaps” of time in the past when lost Canadians were not citizens. Legally recognizing the continuous citizenship of Canadians is important for those who had children born abroad. A person must be a Canadian citizen at the time of his or her child’s birth in order to pass citizenship by descent to the child born abroad.”
To my reading, these statements would indicate that I am considered to have been a Canadian citizen at the time of my daughter’s birth, and that the law limiting citizenship to one generation born abroad would not apply to her, being born before 2009. Obviously, my understanding of this is different than that of the immigration officer who handled our applications! I would greatly appreciate if someone could set me straight. Or is this something that I should appeal? Thanks!
I understand that Bill C-37 prevents citizens from passing down citizenship to their children born abroad after one generation. However, my reading of this bill is that this applies only to children born after 2009. From the C-37 legislative summary:
“This new rule cutting off citizenship after one generation born abroad is only applicable to people born after the rule comes into effect. People born before the rule comes into effect and who are second- or subsequent generation Canadians born abroad retain their existing Canadian citizenship (new section 3(4)). In fact, their position is improved under Bill C-37 as they are no longer subject to the requirement to register and retain their citizenship by age 28.”
From the same publication, regarding my not being a Canadian citizen at the time of my daughter’s birth: “In general terms, Bill C-37 ensures that citizenship is restored to “lost Canadians” retroactively, either to the time it was lost, or for those who never have been citizens in the first place, to birth. These retroactive provisions fill in “gaps” of time in the past when lost Canadians were not citizens. Legally recognizing the continuous citizenship of Canadians is important for those who had children born abroad. A person must be a Canadian citizen at the time of his or her child’s birth in order to pass citizenship by descent to the child born abroad.”
To my reading, these statements would indicate that I am considered to have been a Canadian citizen at the time of my daughter’s birth, and that the law limiting citizenship to one generation born abroad would not apply to her, being born before 2009. Obviously, my understanding of this is different than that of the immigration officer who handled our applications! I would greatly appreciate if someone could set me straight. Or is this something that I should appeal? Thanks!
