Steve_

But how can Australia confer a foreign nationality on someone's child? In essence that means the child could be stateless until the age of ten.

Say you were foreign-born Canadians and that was your only citizenship and you had a child in Australia, how would that work?

dbd33

<applauds>

Former Lancastrian

The importance of citizenship has somewhat changed over the years.
There are those who are very patriotic of their new country others not as much.
Some arrive from countries that lets just say are shitholes and others arriving from the UK well its a Meh do I dont I whats the point.
As some poster pointed out do we take up citizenship to give to that country or receive?
Do seniors in Canada feel better off with citizenship with what they receive in terms of state paid allowances and health care?
I left the UK when I was 28. Is it right that I should go back to the UK when Im say 70 and then see what Im entitled to?
Why do you think the parental sponsorship was put on hold and processing times were long?

Do you agree that parents of naturalized citizens who are sponsored to come over say in their 70s and have never contributed a penny into the Canadian system could then apply for citizenship after 3 years and no test to take and then receive whatever benefits available?
How about all of those Canadian passport holders who have lived in other countries for 50 plus years and are now at retirement age are they coming back for the weather or possibly the healthcare benefits?

So apart from the voting in elections, possibly securing a job that requires Canadian citizenship or not being able to be deported for committing a criminal act what other advantages does it have like others have said?

Steve_

I don't really think any of that is related to the citizenship question, under the Schengen Agreement and the Maastricht Treaty you could move around the whole EEA as a UK citizen so could any citizen of an EEA country. And I'm sure some EEA countries would provide more benefits in certain areas.

People move around inside of Canada because of tax rates and perceived benefits like the childcare law in Québec.

And anyway, what benefits would the parents of a naturalized citizen get? They don't meet the residency requirements for OAS and they won't get CPP and the sponsor provides a statement of support so there is no GIS either. I suppose they'd get basic healthcare but they might have that in their home country.

Former Lancastrian

But what is basic healthcare and what costs are associated with it? True about the OAS and CPP and try going after a sponsor who has no money and that parent now has Canadian citizenship.
Most Provinces today say their healthcare costs are too much and they can't afford it. The Feds want to reduce the transfer payments as healthcare is more of a Provincial not Federal jurisdiction. Where do the provinces get the extra money from then by raising our taxes or introducing more user fees. What is the cost of an ambulance trip to a hospital in your Province?

Martin the cdn expat

A minority of countries use jus soli.

Most countries in Europe don't

Even the UK and Ireland require at least one parent citizen or PR.




But it does come back to the rhetorical question, giving or receiving.


I could agree with some of your arguments ( although Haiti and DR is a bit of a stretch )
if our immigration system was all hunky dory.

However, the Canadian now has a reputation of being one of the most commonly abused passports in the world.


But anyway, we are wandering way off, because no one can see Canada moving away from jus soli anytime soon.

Former Lancastrian

And why is the Canadian passport one of the most abused. Admittedly a UK or US passport is also a highly sought after item as well.

Martin the cdn expat

http://www.ctvnews.ca/passport-theft...cally-1.296050

http://www.canada.com/news/Canadian+...813/story.html

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire....olen-passports

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/fake.html
Identity theft, especially preying on Canada's increasing multicultural look.

Former Lancastrian

You would be amazed at how many passports get handed in to us which have been left behind on a plane or found within the airport terminal.
I guess the stress of travelling and needing to know what the latest update on Facebook or non important email message on the smart phone is making passengers forgetful of their ID documents.

MarylandNed

Totally agree. Canada has a small number of babies born to foreign nationals. British Columbia reported around 200 in a recent year. Of those, the immigration status of the parents wasn't even known i.e. they could have been here as temporary workers, students, tourists or even illegally. So I don't see how birth tourism can be perceived as a "problem" when the numbers seem so small. With the US next door, it's unlikely that Canada will ever have a major birth tourism problem. If the US ever ends birthright citizenship, then things might change for Canada. It's even debatable whether birthright citizenship could ever be construed as a problem given Canada's low birth rate and need for immigrants.

That's just not workable IMO. It's certainly feasible to restrict birthright citizenship to children of parents of a certain immigration status (e.g. citizens, PRs, temporary workers, students, etc). Canada already does have additional restrictions for children of foreign diplomats. However, I can't see how it would be feasible to perform pregnancy tests at a port of entry. That's just not going to happen.

JAJ

Australia cannot confer a foreign nationality on a non-citizen child. It can (and does) automatically confer an immigration status.

The child born in Australia of two (sole) Canadian citizens by descent, living in Australia as temporary residents, would normally be stateless at birth, based on the 2009 Citizenship Act reforms in Canada. The child would be eligible for a special grant of Australian citizenship as long as the parents could demonstrate that the child was not "entitled" to acquire the citizenship or nationality of any other country.

FlyingDutchman6666

Yep. Most countries, even the ones not using ivs soli, grant citizenship to children born there, if they would otherwise be stateless.

This is great in theory. In practice however, the burden of proof rests on the child (or its parent). And the sort of countries that make people stateless aren't exactly known for their cooperative attitude. That's a recipe for stateless children remaining in administrative purgatory for years.

Example: a child born in Australia of a Canadian citizen by descent, and an Algerian woman. The child is stateless by birth, but getting the Australian citizenship grant would normally involve statements/documents from the Algerian embassy. Good luck with that.

In the mean time, possibly for several years, the child would be unable to leave Australia. Question for JAJ: would it be breaking any immigration laws?

JAJ

It wouldn't require the co-operation of the Algerian Embassy. If Algerian law was such that the mother did not pass on citizenship, it would be possible to obtain evidence of this from other, non-government sources. Then submit the application for Australian citizenship. If the evidence was well presented, and evidenced that the child was not an Algerian citizen (and could not become one by simple entitlement) then Australian citizenship would probably be granted, usually fairly quickly. There are appeal rights but should not be needed where a case is documented properly.

This kind of information is used (different context) in refugee/protection visa cases all the time. Of course it helps to know what you're doing, or have a competent advisor who does.

Section 78 of the Migration Act gives the child the same status as the parents. Possession of a foreign nationality - or otherwise - is irrelevant.

I will make a few additional observations:

1. It's not really Australia's fault that Canada has chosen not to make any provision for stateless children of Canadian citizens to get Canadian citizenship. Or do anything about the special status of those who may be Canadian citizens by descent but who have lived a significant amount of time in Canada; and

2. People should really think about these issues before deciding on where to have their children, or even before deciding to live in a particular place, or seek (or not seek) a particular immigration status. And even those who may be well informed in other spheres may know very little about nationality matters. For example:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/11...less-children/

We don't know all the details, or whether things were reported correctly, but based on the facts given, we're told that the father of the child born in Brussels was born in Bermuda. And age of parents is given as 43 - which means that he would be a British citizen (born in Bermuda before 1983) and the child was never stateless, but instead would have been automatically a British citizen by descent.

MarylandNed

Being born in Bermuda before 1983 does not guarantee full British citizenship. It's possible that the father is a British Overseas Citizen - they do not have right of abode in the UK and are generally unable to pass on British Overseas Citizenship by descent.

Steve_

Well it would be possible on a limited basis where CBSA is suspicious, that was my point, there are plenty of simple ways to test for pregnancy, physical examination being only one.

That 200 figure as I recall was some estimate by a doctor in a letter where she moaned about it, so even that could be exaggerated.

There's no point to changing the law, unless it needs to be spelled out in the regulations that a person entering to give birth lacks non-immigrant intent as a tourist.