Steve_

Yeah it's actually a new concept (well not that new but newer than jus sanguis). And the UK used to do it up until quite recently.

It definitely isn't a mistake, the main reason some countries (like the Dominican Republic) have done away with it is largely because of paranoia generated by some isolated incidents.

Proving who your parents are is not always an easy task and if you can't, then you could end up stateless, which is a growing problem.

Anyone who thinks jus soli is a bad idea I suggest reads Dred Scott v. Sandford which is generally considered the worst decision ever made by the US Supreme Court and was one of the things that led to the Civil War. Hence the 14th Amendment. Also, US v. Wong Kim Ark

Martin the cdn expat

It isn't as long as you plan on staying in Canada.
Too many come for a couple years, have a kid or two, get papers for all,
then bugger off home.

Are they 'Canadian' ?
Do they deserve citizenship if they live in the country only for
3 years ?
6 months ?
2 weeks ?

My answer is no. Citizens have rights, they also have responsibilities.
Countries have responsibilities, they should also have the expectation that
citizens demonstrate a commitment to the country.
If you/your family go home after 2-3 years, there is no commitment.

Why on earth do you think I limit this to the EU ?
There are many other countries in the world, but please don't tell me this
isn't full of ' Canadians of convenience'.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/evacuat...esday-1.579019

50,000 'Canadians' in Lebanon, needing gov't help to be evacuated because
they can't finance a trip 'home'.

Your attempts to bait and insult fall flat. Sorry, you're going to have to do better. Blame the 50,000 Lebanese for your backlog, not me.
If Canada had a decent immigration system, maybe people who really want to be in Canada and become Canadian wouldn't have so much trouble.
Instead, what we do have is a revolving door laughing stock.

Novocastrian

I think they are citizens after one millisecond.

Could you explain what contributions to Canada and what responsibilities you fulfilled in the first

3 years
6 months
2 weeks

after you were borne?

Because they couldn't finance a trip?? They were in the middle of a bloody war man. Get a grip.

And it wasn't 50,000.

Oakvillian

You can't have it both ways. Circumstances change. People might come to Canada with every intention of staying, then decide not to. Should their children suffer the indignity of potentially being made stateless as a result? Would a baby qualify for citizenship on its third birthday? What would be its status in Canada before that point - would it be covered for provincial healthcare, for example? Could it be registered for the school it would attend the following September? I don't think your position is practical.

The Canadian government evacuated around 13,000 citizens from Lebanon in 2006, I don't know where you got your 50,000 number from. Many of those have since returned to Lebanon. Let's suppose for a moment that 10,000 remain: how is their arrival in Canada (where, as you yourself pointed out, they are already citizens) affecting the backlog of immigration processing some seven years later?

My point is that you cannot differentiate between the treatment of "New Canadians" from different parts of the world, or those that arrive under various personal circumstances. I don't think there's any serious argument against immigration to Canada: the country needs a steady stream of immigration to service the needs of the economy, that will not be met by the existing population (which is getting steadily older...).

Every country that offers dual citizenship will end up with some, as you call them, "citizens of convenience." That is a price to be paid for living in a civilised society. I, for one, am happy to pay that price, though I reserve the right to grumble that the government is a bunch of incompetent toads when it comes to the administration of the processes associated with that society.

Martin the cdn expat

1. OK, I have a different opinion.

2. It wasn't 3yrs, etc. for me. It was 30. School, work, taxes, not taking citizenship of another country.

3. I always have enough money to get home, next airplane, first class if I have to. But it's not the circumstances, it's the number of passport holders.
Yes I know it was 15,000 evacuated, cost $100million. Most went back to Lebanon a month later, and didn't need to be evacuated, they had money to pay for it themselves. Some high quality citizens right there.

Novocastrian

1. Well yes that's obvious. But Canada agrees with me.

2. You are (I hope intentionally) missing the point which is not whether the parents should gain any benefit (not benefits) from happening to get successfully pregnant whilst residing in Canada (they don't) but whether all people borne in Canada are citizens by jus soli. Again Canada agrees with me.

3. Obviously again, I hope you never find yourself in the middle of a war zone, but if you did, I think you'd discover that however much money you have in your pocket it would be tricky to book a flight out if the airport was under Israeli (in this instance) bombardment.

Martin the cdn expat

Now those are excellent points.
Stateless ? No, they would have citizenship of their parents, mother as a minimum.
As regards status, I get it that it's not easy, but that raises the general question do people emigrate to give, or receive ?

Half went back to Lebanon a month later. 7500 stayed, maybe.
The backlog gets created because the 50,000 continue to clog up the Canadian system by sponsoring family and keeping their status while abroad.
50,000 comes from the CBC article I posted.. a noted hardcore right wing subsidiary of the Daily Mail.

I know this is a popular message. However, the more I read about real wages falling, low paying jobs going down to minimum wage and part time due to 300 people applying for a single position, university grads without jobs,the actual costs to the country of immigration, mixed with poorer immigrant economic performance, I'm not convinced Canada's current immigration levels are benefiting the country. It's not just Canada, either. Unrestricted immigration is also making big problems in Europe as well.


I never said I was in favour of dual citizenship.
My parents immigrated in 1967. Became citizens in 1974. Gave up their Dutch citizenship AND nationality; at that time, you could either be Dutch or not, no dual.
This, imo, is some pretty serious stuff, requiring a real decision how to orient your life.

I agree with your right to grumble, I encourage you to do it frequently.
I can image many people in Immigration are twats.
When you get your passport, you'll find most of them came over from
the Passport Renewal office.

Martin the cdn expat

3. This is why God made boats, 4x4s, cars, motorcycles, horses, thumbs, and little green apples.
My point being 50,000 passport holders are not tourists getting caught in a mistake. Something else going on there.

Novocastrian

<ignore list worthy pap. There's no prospect of intelligent conversation with you. Bye-bye>

MarylandNed

#1 Possible increase in the residence requirement - but perhaps a change/clarification to what residency means in terms of physical presence is more likely

#2 Just can't see this one happening at all

JAJ

Not always. Some countries don't let mothers (or unmarried fathers) pass on their citizenship, other times (more usually) the parent may be citizens by descent or otherwise unable to pass on their citizenship can't pass on citizenship any further. Not usual - but not unknown.


The approach in Australia is to give a non-citizen child born in the country the same status as the parents. If child lives in the country until age 10, child automatically becomes a citizen on 10th birthday (if child isn't a citizen already).

If Canada does go down this path one of the problems will be that since a Canadian birth certificate will no longer prove citizenship, there will be some cases in future where Canadian born people (with citizenship) have difficulties proving it. There have been situations like this in Australia, especially where parents were PR rather than citizen.

dbd33

How long have you been in Italy?

Martin the cdn expat

Seems pretty reasonable.

Actually I don't think Kenney will change that much. The Conservatives have deluded themselves into thinking immigrants will vote for them, so they won't look to tighten things up. And citizenship in general isn't a hot button issue in Canada.





2 years and a bit.
The complete list includes Slovakia, Spain, Belgium and Italy

Don't worry, I know where you are headed. I wrestle with this question myself.

MarylandNed

I don't think Jason Kenney will be changing anything in terms of citizenship or immigration since he is no longer the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - he was succeeded in that post by Chris Alexander. Kenney is now the Minister of Employment and Social Development.

Steve_

No they wouldn't, which is the exact problem created by the Dominican Republic when they changed away from jus soli. They claim those people are Haitian but those people are unable to prove they are Haitian in many cases due to difficulties in proving who their parents actually were and even if they can, their parents can't necessarily prove where they were born either.

This was the point of jus soli, were there comprehensive records of which slave was your parent? Did First Nations keep comprehensive birth records?

Not all countries recognize jus sanguis as you describe it, precisely because they have the policy you are advocating.

For example if you are born in Algeria to foreign parents, you do not get Algerian citizenship.

Canadian law only recognizes jus sanguis for the second generation, so say you were born in the US (but never lived there), lived in Québec most of your life and had a child in Algeria, that child doesn't get Algerian citizenship, Canadian citizenship or US citizenship from you. And if the other parent is in a similar situation, that child is stateless.

Abolishing jus soli because of a few people who have their kids in Canada (and who frankly themselves get no benefit from it, as sponsoring in parents takes forever and they've got to be adults first) has to be one of the best examples of a poorly thought out kneejerk over-the-top reaction to a small problem.

It would make more sense to simply do a brief examination of a woman arriving from abroad if CBSA is suspicious as to their intent.

Jus soli is a hard fought for civil right.