Talk:Canadian nationality law/Archive 1

Taxes
I am unaware of any specifics, but would think that being a Canadian citizen would entail paying taxes as part of their rights and responsibilities.


 * Canadians not resident in Canada don't pay taxes to Flag of Canada.svg --Spinboy 6 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)

Canada was not the first Commonwealth country to enact a citizenship law
Canadian citizenship was introduced on 1 January 1947.

However the Irish Free State introduced domestic citizenship on 10 April 1935 (Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1935). At the time the Irish Free State was still a Commonwealth member, it departed the Commonwealth on 18th April 1949.

I'd suggest the easiest way to resolve this is to say Canada was the first of the *current* Commonwealth nations to introduce a citizenship law. The Irish were lukewarm members of the Commonwealth for some time before 1949. JAJ 01:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Residence period for Canadian citizenship
For Canadian citizenship three years residence is required. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizen/becoming-howto.html

The two years in five requirement (that many refer to) concerns the residence obligation for permanent residents to keep their status as permanent residents: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomer/res-oblig.html JAJ

Proof of Citizenship Document
I've removed these comments due to non-specific information.

"Ongoing problems with the "Proof of Citizenship" document


 * Canadian High Commissions, Cousulates and Embassies are able to submit the "Proof of Citizenship" document if you are outside of Canada -- but the consular staff may refuse to send the application onward because of their lack of knowledge of the citizenship law.
 * Consular staff are not employed (nor trained) by the federal government department that issues the "Proof of Citizenship" document and are not qualified to refuse the transmission of your document to the department. "JAJ

History of Canadian citizenship moved to a separate article?
I note that a substantial part of the article has been moved to another one 'History of Canadian citizenship'. There is no particular reason to move this information. The article was not excessively long as it was.

Not only has it removed some current information (ie how a person gets Canadian citizenship by birth), but the information concerning the situation pre 1977 and pre-1947 is relevant to any Canadian born before that date.

Comments are welcome, however I propose reverting the article to the way it was. JAJ 00:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The main reason for the move is because too much of the article was just history, and it made for a very uneven read. Every time I would read through the article it would strike me as confusing because very little of it actually dealt with what Canadian nationality law is today. It's not until near the bottom do you even find out what the current rights of citizenship are. The dominant material of the article concerned the history of nationality law so I think it would be more appropriately title as such. -PullUpYourSocks 02:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying there's no argument for a separate article on history - there is - however you've removed a lot of very relevant information concerning the status of Canadians today.   Section 8 loss for second generation Canadians on 28th birthday is part of current law, as are the recent provisions for resumption etc.    I suggest keeping the history article but the article as it stands now needs to be expanded with reference to how historical provisions affect the status of living Canadians (or former Canadians) today  JAJ 13:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then I apologize for not paying close enough attention. I'll take a look to correct it sometime later today, that is, unless you'd like to have a crack at it first. -PullUpYourSocks 13:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article as it stands now is fairly current and references to historical information are only made when necessary.   Because the law changes were not retrospective, any Canadian born before 1977 could have been affected by these, for example.  JAJ 01:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the history of legislative attempts to rewrite the Canadian citizenship oath? Liberal administrations tried this in 1998, 1999, and 2003. The monarchist lobby (Monarchist_League_of_Canada) seems more powerful in Canada than Australia, where the citizenship oath is no longer a pledge to the Queen of England. 2003 seems a bit late for monarchists to have influence over Canadian legislation. Sounds like an interesting story, and I'd be grateful if someone could fill in the details -- i.e. was the Canadian senate instrumental in blocking passage of this legislation?

I've removed the following content from the section describing ways a person may involuntaraly lose their Canadian citizenship:


 * where a Canadian citizen is given a British peerage, if the Prime Minister of Canada exercises his discretion to strip a peer of his Canadian citizenship (see Nickel Resolution and Conrad Black)

The Nickel resolution relates to Canadians being permited to take out a foreign honour not to removing their Canadian citizenship. --Canadian Osprey 15:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth Citizenship

 * As far as I know Canadians aren't allowed to vote in the elections of the UK, does anyone know if its true as the article says? Gsingh 17:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Canadian citizens can vote in the U.K. JAJ 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is weird; I've never heard before that Canadian citizens are entitled to vote in UK elections. But this pdf from the UK Electoral Commission (accessed from this page) says that Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK are entitled to vote in UK general elections. It goes on to say that this provision “is due to the traditionally close ties that exist between our countries”. --Mathew5000 17:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is due to the fact that Commonwealth Citizens also owns allegiance to the Queen (though legally distinctive Queens) and thus able to vote in UK elections. Reciprocal rights are granted to British Citizens by the Irish Government, Australia grants the right to all Commonwealth Citizens who were already on its electoral roll before 1984 and similarly, Bermuda grants the right to all Commonwealth Citizens if they registered before 1976--Cahk (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not really because Commonwealth citizens owe allegiance to the Queen (the Queen is not the head of state of every Commonwealth country — some are republics). It's historical, going back to the days when Commonwealth citizens were not considered "foreign" in the UK (technically they're still not: hence the "Foreign and Commonwealth Office", for example). Virtually all (though not quite all) the immigration concessions that Commonwealth citizens once enjoyed in the UK are gone, but Commonwealth citizens who are resident in the UK retain some rights that foreign residents do not have: the right to vote in Westminster elections is one of these. They also retain some duties too; for example, they can be called on to serve on a jury. No doubt all of this might change one day, but it is hardly a pressing concern, one way or the other, for most of the UK's political masters.... Ondewelle (talk) 22:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that Canadian citizens are not recognized as Commonwealth citizens under Canadian law. Canadian law only recognizes citizens of other Commonwealth countries as Commonwealth citizens. Here is the relevant paragraph from the Act: "Citizen of the Commonwealth  32 (1) Every person who, under an enactment of a Commonwealth country other than Canada, is a citizen or national of that country has in Canada the status of a citizen of the Commonwealth."   JDM1991 (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is correct. However, the reason why the status is important is so that Commonwealth citizens are not considered as "foreign" in each other's countries, even though the meaning of the term "foreign" varies from country to country. In Canada, Canadian citizens are definite not "foreign" regardless of how you look at it, and hence it really does not make a difference whether they are considered as Commonwealth citizens or not in their own country. C-GAUN (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Added external link to a law resource
A foreign brides resource. I hope it's okay Manic-pedant 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pre 1947 info would be useful
I'd like to know if an elderly man is a Canadian citizen if he is born in the USA in the 1930's to a Canadian mother and an American father, if his mother became American.

67.166.120.116 (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can give you an example..........

my mother was born in Canada in the 1930's her father was born in the UK and moved to Canada and served in the Canadian military in WW1 BOTH move to the USA before 1947 and become citizens there.At the time of there becoming American citizens there they where British subjects.

So under the old and new Canadian citizenship acts they and myself are not Canadian citizens. So...................your Canadian mother what country was she a citizen of in 1947????? many Canadians moved to the usa but did not become citizens there and if she did, did she do so after 1947?

look at the CIC website under...who will not become a Canadian on 17 April 2009 under the new Canadian citizenship act

I will work to edit the page you speak of with references ( --Infocat13 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

New Citizenship Rules Coming Into Effect By April 17, 2009
I think this information should be added to the page. There are new citizenship rules that will come into effect by April 17, 2009, which will give Canadian citizenship to certain individuals who lost it and to others who will be recognized as citizens for the first time.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/ENGLISH/citizenship/rules-citizenship.asp

New citizenship rules

A new law will come into effect no later than April 17, 2009, which amends the Citizenship Act. The new law will give Canadian citizenship to certain individuals who lost it and to others who will be recognized as citizens for the first time. Citizenship will be automatic and retroactive to the date of loss or date of birth, depending on the situation. Also, all individuals who are Canadian citizens at the time the law comes into effect will keep their citizenship.

Until the new law comes into effect, the current law still applies.

* This means that people who will become citizens under the new law but wish to move to Canada before it comes into effect must contact CIC to find out what steps they must take to come to Canada legally. * Also, people born outside Canada who are subject to the retention rules and who turn 28 before the law comes into effect must still take action to retain citizenship.

Who will become a citizen

The law restores citizenship to the following individuals who lost it due to rules in previous laws:

* People who became citizens when the first citizenship act took effect on January 1, 1947, including people born in Canada prior to 1947, war brides, and other British subjects who had lived in Canada for at least five years before 1947; * People who were born in Canada or became a Canadian citizen on or after January 1, 1947, and who then lost citizenship; and * People who were born outside Canada, on or after January 1, 1947, in the first generation born abroad, to a parent who was a Canadian citizen at the time of the birth.

The law gives citizenship to the following individuals who have never been citizens:

* People who did not take the steps necessary to become a citizen and who were born outside Canada on or after January 1, 1947, in the first generation born abroad to a parent who was a Canadian citizen at the time of the birth.

Who will not become a citizen

The following individuals will not become citizens under the new law:

* People who did not become citizens when the first citizenship act took effect on January 1, 1947; * People born in Canada who are not citizens because at the time of their birth one of their parents was a foreign diplomat; * People who were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent, who are not already citizens, and who were born in the second or subsequent generation abroad; * People who were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent, in the second or subsequent generation abroad and who lost citizenship because they did not take the steps needed to retain their citizenship; * People who renounced their citizenship, as an adult, with Canadian government; * People whose citizenship was revoked by the government because it was obtained by fraud.

Adoption

The rules that came into effect in December 2007 that allow children born outside Canada and adopted after February 14, 1977 to become Canadian citizens without having to become permanent residents will be extended to persons adopted on or after January 1, 1947. For the adopted person to be eligible for citizenship, certain requirements must be met, including the submission of an application. This also includes persons adopted by someone who will reacquire Canadian citizenship under the new law. Persons born or adopted outside Canada after the new law comes into effect

The new law changes the rules for people born outside Canada. Individuals born outside Canada to a parent, who was a Canadian citizen at the time of the birth, will only be Canadians at birth if:

* the parent was born in Canada; * the parent became a Canadian citizen; that is, by immigrating to Canada and being granted citizenship.

This means that children born in another country after the new law comes into effect will not be a Canadian citizen by birth if they were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent who was also born outside Canada to a Canadian parent.

This limitation will also apply to foreign-born persons adopted by a Canadian parent. Adopted children of Canadian citizens will be considered to be the first generation born abroad. This means that:

* if a person adopted by a Canadian parent has a child outside Canada, that child is not a citizen by birth; * if a person adopted by a Canadian parent adopts a child outside Canada, that child will not be eligible to apply for citizenship under the adoption provisions in the Citizenship Act; * if a person born outside to a Canadian parent, in the first generation born abroad, adopts a foreign-born child, that adopted child will not be eligible to apply for citizenship under the adoption provisions in the Citizenship Act.

Children who are not eligible for citizenship under the Citizenship Act may be sponsored as permanent residents. How to prove you are a Canadian citizen

For most purposes, people who were born in Canada may use their provincial or territorial birth certificate to prove their Canadian citizenship. Individuals who were born in Canada, lost citizenship in the past, and either resumed citizenship in the past or reacquire it under the new law should be able to use their birth certificate as proof of citizenship.

People who were born outside Canada require a citizenship certificate to prove their Canadian citizenship. Find out how to apply for a citizenship certificate. Getting ready for the new law

CIC is preparing for the new law by:

* writing regulations to support the amendments; * writing information sheets to explain the changes; * updating applications and other forms; * training staff; * working with stakeholders and partners to ensure they know about the changes and can inform others about them.

Scanadiense 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)\\

Assessment
Today I rated the article "C" class due to general level of content and reasonable level of research and in-line citations within it. I also raised the importance rating to "High" as I believe the subject matter is rather important not only to Canadians but also to people seeking to immigrate.  PK T  18:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

question regarding the new laws
being in the US I don't feel qualified to do the updating, but could whoever does... please check out the following apparent inconsistency in the news reports?

Per the WSJ

"The new law offers citizenship to many individuals now in limbo. It also stops the previous practice of granting citizenship in perpetuity to children of Canadians born abroad, limiting eligibility to children of parents born in Canada."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993183347727843.html?mod=yhoofront

HOWEVER, when I look at the text on the official Canadian web page, I see:

"This means that children born to Canadian parents in the first generation outside Canada will only be Canadian at birth if:

* one parent was born in Canada, or   * one parent became a Canadian citizen by immigrating to Canada and was later granted citizenship (also called naturalization)"

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/rules-citizenship.asp

- So based on the latter, it looks to me that if someone escaped from Germany in 1938, stayed in Canada - and got Canadian citizenship, and then moved into the US in, say, 1955, taking US citizenship, then a kid born in the US in 1960 would qualify.

Anyone know? thanks

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC) yes............ that child being born pre 2009 and being first generation born abroad is a canadian but you left out an important fact............... when did the refugee become a Canadian ?or if before 1947 a British subject? under the 2009 law was this person "in" Canada in 1947? under the old law if the child born in 1960 had children they had till there 20 something birthday to register there citizenship under the 2009 law they do not but you say 1955 so you are safe Canadian eh not sure about any kids you had you might have better to have acted before April 2009 --Infocat13 (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I didn't give exact dates in my earlier question because I was looking for the more general answer.

It seems the WSJ was wrong, or badly written. The Canadian Consulate responded to me and confirmed that in the typical case I questioned, there's a good chance the US born children could claim Canadian citizenship.

(Again, the example I posed was of a father who escaped from Europe, made it to Canada, got Canadian citizenship, then left Canada for the US. He then traded in his Canadian citizenship for the US one, and a decade or so later had kids.)

I've forwarded this info to some affected acquantances and they're in the process of starting the paperwork.

Thanks again.

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Bold assertions and the burden of proof
On March 31 2014 an edit was made with two bold assertions: (1) Canada was nominally a colony of Britain until 1982 due to a request from Ottawa, (2) Canadian laws were subject to quarterly approval by the British parliament until 1982. There was no explanation and there were no citations to back up the assertions. Today (November 11) I reverted that edit. However, six minutes later NotWillyWonka reverted my reversion, and has ignored my claim that WP:PROVEIT applies, which says: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." No such citation has been provided. Are there third-party opinions -- not about the assertions' truth/falsity, but whether the burden lies with NotWillyWonka to demonstrate verifiability? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the paragraph in question. Canada certainly wasn't a colony after 1931 and there was never any "quarterly approval" of Canadian law by the British parliament. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the info was pretty much already there, and had been "concensus" approuved by being there for over six months, it just needed to be re worded a bit like Mies did, not completely removed. You don't simply remove things that you don't like or agree with, otherwise there would be no article on Wikipedia about anything in Québec except that it's all roses and fleurs de lys, and everyone is happy.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The unsourced assertions, which were all that the March edit was about, are gone. That's a satisfactory result so thank you Miesianiacal. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  06:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "puffery" claim
Two edits by an IP address recently claimed that using the term Royal assent violated WP:PUFFERY. This is beyond ludicrous: the term has been in Canadian politics for over a century, and it simply means that the Bill has formally become a part of the law. Royal assent is also not "in paper only" as a Bill, even approved by both chambers, stays a Bill unless the GG signs off on it. Bill C-6 officially became law when it received Royal assent on 19 June 2017 and most parts of the Bill is in effect immediately. C-GAUN (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Children with Canadian parents
Where the article mentions subsections 5(1) and (2), they don't seem to tie up with what is in the Act on the official site - does anyone have any thoughts on this?

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-1.html#h-3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law#Special_provision_for_children_with_a_Canadian_parent_or_guardian

Chocoholic2017 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The Justice Laws Website has not been updated to reflect the most recent changes to the Act which was done on June 20th. The Website's version is only current to June 18th which was two days before the amendments went into effect. C-GAUN (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)