Triple Citizienship / Passports??

[screech339]

A good example of automatic right to citizenship.

Randy Quaid's wife, Evi Quaid. The wacky couple that filed for refugee status over fear of their lives from star-whackers. She is Canadian by descent. She never filed paperwork to acquire citizenship. She didn't even knew she was considered to be Canadian to Canadian authorities until Immigration discovered her father was Canadian born. They recognized her as Canadian even though she never started or had any paperwork to acquire it. Does this mean she was stateless if she was born in China? No it means she was never stateless. She had Canadian citizenship all along even though no paperwork was filed. All she had to do was submit papers that confirmed that she was, in fact, Canadian all along.

 

[alphazip]

Just a question to ask. If my child was born in China, does my child have automatic right to Canadian citizenship? Yes or No.

If you say Yes, then it is no difference from the child in the article. The child has automatic right to her Irish citizenship through her grandfather. The only time she would not have any automatic rights to her Irish citizenship is if the grandfather never registered her father in foreign birth registration to Ireland.

If you say No, then you are saying my child does not have any rights to her Canadian citizenship by law.

The example you made, only mean to say that the person was stateless. as in "was a stateless person in the past". not temporarily stateless. We can argue over the terminology use of the word temporarily but I don't think the example you made is not correctly applied.

It is not correctly applied because you are comparing a child born in the first generation who is instantly a citizen under both Canadian and Irish law, with a child born in the second generation who is not a citizen under Canadian law, and can be a citizen "by registration" under Irish law. Perhaps you don't think there is a difference, but I do.

I am using the English word "temporarily" to mean "lasting for a limited time". If Rachel Chandler was born with no citizenship in June, 2009, and became an Irish citizen in August 2010 (according to another article), then she was stateless for 14 months. Her Irish citizenship dates from the date of registration, not birth.

 

[alphazip]

I don't have to look at Evi Quaid to see an example of Canadian citizenship descending to a person in the FIRST GENERATION BORN ABROAD. I can just look at myself. My father was born in Canada, I was born in the USA, and I'm a Canadian citizen living in Canada. What does that prove? You and I both know that the child of a Canadian (born or naturalized in Canada) is a Canadian citizen from birth. I never claimed that I or any other person born abroad in the 1st generation was stateless. The Chandler case dealt with a child born abroad in THE 2ND GENERATION, and thus (under the 2009 changes) was not a Canadian citizen at all.

Perhaps this article (in a conservative paper) will help you understand the issue: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/11/26/high-flying-professionals-producing-a-generation-of-stateless-children/

 

[screech339]

It is not correctly applied because you are comparing a child born in the first generation who is instantly a citizen under both Canadian and Irish law, with a child born in the second generation who is not a citizen under Canadian law, and can be a citizen "by registration" under Irish law. Perhaps you don't think there is a difference, but I do.

But she does have the right to her Irish citizenship, does she not? As long as she has a right to her Irish citizenship, she cannot be technically stateless. To me a stateless person cannot leave or enter another country for rest of life. The child can actually leave the country by getting Irish citizenship thus was not stateless. Had Irish citizenship all long by submitting papers. It doesn't matter if it is from birth or at registration.

When I registered my oldest child, her citizenship was from time of registration, even though she was born Canadian at birth. Didn't even say citizenship from birth. It said Canadian Citizenship since issue date of certificate. So with this example, the child was considered to be Canadian at time of registration. But you know and I know that my child was born "Canadian" by descent. My example prove to mean that the child was considered to be born "Irish" by descent despite registration papers saying she was Irish at time of paperwork.

 

[screech339]

My father was born in Canada, I was born in the USA, and I'm a Canadian citizen living in Canada. What does that prove?

Does your Canadian citizenship card have a date on it? I am sure it said Canadian since specified date much like my child's card says. So are you born Canadian by Descent or were Canadian since your card's issued date. So despite your card saying Canadian since registration date, you were born "Canadian". No difference from the child's example. She was born "Irish" by descent. You and my child and the child in article are no difference.

I can understand your frustration with the new citizenship law since you can no longer pass Canadian citizenship abroad, much like my child. If I want my grandchild to be Canadian, I will have to advise my daughter to have her baby in Canada or get pregnant by a Canadian father (born or naturalized).

 

[alphazip]

But she does have the right to her Irish citizenship, does she not? As long as she has a right to her Irish citizenship, she cannot be technically stateless. To me a stateless person cannot leave or enter another country for rest of life. The child can actually leave the country by getting Irish citizenship thus was not stateless. Had Irish citizenship all long by submitting papers. It doesn't matter if it is from birth or at registration.

When I registered my oldest child, her citizenship was from time of registration, even though she was born Canadian at birth. Didn't even say citizenship from birth. It said Canadian Citizenship since issue date of certificate. So with this example, the child was considered to be Canadian at time of registration. But you know and I know that my child was born "Canadian" by descent. My example prove to mean that the child was considered to be born "Irish" by descent despite registration papers saying she was Irish at time of paperwork.

I don't know your personal situation, but if you were born in Canada (or naturalized here before the birth of your child), then the child was a Canadian citizen from the moment of birth. The former citizenship cards did not contain that information, but the new citizenship certificates do. So, if you want your child to know they're a citizen from birth, apply for a new certificate.

That's fine that you don't care whether a person is a citizen from birth or from 14 months later, but that's your opinion. The fact is that until Rachel Chandler's father discovered that he had the possibility of registering her birth in her grandfather's birthplace, she had no citizenship and could not travel. That's also fine that you define statelessness as being a permanent condition. That's not correct (a stateless person can obviously later acquire a citizenship), but if you want to think that, fine.

Again, I urge you to read the article in the conservative paper, "The National Post". They use the term "stateless" for Rachel Chandler and others in a similar situation. If you strongly disagree, I think a letter to the editor is in order.

 

[alphazip]

I can understand your frustration with the new citizenship law since you can no longer pass Canadian citizenship abroad, much like my child. If I want my grandchild to be Canadian, I will have to advise my daughter to have her baby in Canada or get pregnant by a Canadian father (born or naturalized).

Why are you assuming that I am frustrated with the 2009 changes? All I was telling the OP was that his hypothetical grandchild will not be Canadian (unless born in Canada) and pointing to the article on the Chandlers as an illustration of that fact. You, on the other hand, want to make sure that everyone knows that the changes were good (because of those bad Lebanese Canadians). I haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other.

 

[screech339]

Why are you assuming that I am frustrated with the 2009 changes? All I was telling the OP was that his hypothetical grandchild will not be Canadian (unless born in Canada) and pointing to the article on the Chandlers as an illustration of that fact. You, on the other hand, want to make sure that everyone knows that the changes were good (because of those bad Lebanese Canadians). I haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other.

Sorry if I made the assumption that you are frustrated. But you seem to try to correct my "born by descent" argument every time especially when it relates to the Irish girl. So from your action of trying to correct me over stateless over and over for the Irish girl shows me that you were frustrated with the new citizenship law.

As for the national post article, in my view Rachael was never "stateless" as she born "Irish by descent". The parents assumed the child was stateless believing the child had no other citizenship. But in fact wasn't as she was born Irish by descent. The father just didn't know it. Whereas choe was in fact "stateless" since she had no legal citizenship rights by descent or birth.

As for my opinion of the law, I don't really care, to be honest. But objectively, without any emotional thought or personal feelings on it, I think it is a good law.

Do I want to have all my future children/grandchildren to be Canadians by passing on citizenship for eternity? My Canadian descendants all over the world they didn't have to step foot in Canada ever. Sure I would like that. That doesn't mean the old law is the right one. It shows the flaw in the system. The new law just simply keep the passing of citizenship in check.

 

[alphazip]

As for my opinion, I believe that there has to be some kind of limit on citizenship by descent. However, the 2009 changes were probably too restrictive. There should have been an exception written into the law stating that if a child doesn't automatically acquire a citizenship from either parent or the country of birth, then the child of a Canadian citizen parent (no matter where that parent was born) is Canadian. (I don't view Rachel Chandler's acquisition of Irish citizenship as automatic, while you do...so let's just leave it at that.)

 

[screech339]

Yes, we have come to the point of agreeing to disagree when it comes to Rachael's acquisition of Irish citizenship.

BTW. My child also has another citizenship through her mother's side. Her papers said she acquired citizenship at time of registration. Again by descent. Does this also mean my child was not born of the other citizenship either even though my wife says she was born of her european nationality? Again no difference to Rachael's case. So you used the Canadian citizenship example to invalidate my claim of "by descent" since it is from birth. According to you, she wasn't born of my wife's nationality since her papers says she acquires it at time of registration.

 

[screech339]

As for my opinion, I believe that there has to be some kind of limit on citizenship by descent. However, the 2009 changes were probably too restrictive. There should have been an exception written into the law stating that if a child doesn't automatically acquire a citizenship from either parent or the country of birth, then the child of a Canadian citizen parent (no matter where that parent was born) is Canadian. (I don't view Rachel Chandler's acquisition of Irish citizenship as automatic, while you do...so let's just leave it at that.)

If you want that exemption for Canada to give canadian citizenship to stateless children of Canadian parents, Canada need to sign the 1954 Hague convention relating to status of stateless persons.

 

[screech339]

One little thing. If the Irish girl was in fact stateless for 14 months, Canada would have given her travel documents to enter Canada. Canada had reason to believe the girl was not stateless since she can acquire Irish citizenship by descent. Canada wanted proof that the girl was in fact stateless. If the girl's grandfather didn't registered the father, the girl would be proven to be stateless and be given travel documents to Canada.

Goes back to my original point. Everyone is not stateless unless proven otherwise.