Bill C-37 immigration question (university, live in, law)

[Yhbv24]

Hello, I had a question I thought could possibly be answered here.

Basically, there was a law passed on April 17, 2009 (Bill C-37), which (as it applies to me) limited Canadian citizenship to first generation Canadians born abroad, and also retroactively gives citizenship to people who were born to Canadian parent(s) if they didn't apply for it or lost it.

My father had a Canadian mother, and through this law was given citizenship retroactive to his date of birth. However, he was born outside Canada, as was I, making me the second generation born abroad to a Canadian citizen.

My question is, does the law "grandfather" me in so I could acquire citizenship through my father? Or is it retroactive in limiting citizenship to only first generation Canadians born abroad?

My understanding is that the law is proactive, and limits citizenship to children born AFTER the date.

From the actual bill: "This new rule cutting off citizenship after one generation born abroad is only applicable to people born after the rule comes into effect."

However, it still seems vague to me.

If anyone happens to be knowledgeable about Canadian immigration procedures, would this then make me eligible for citizenship, since my father has now been a Canadian citizen since birth, and I am apparently grandfathered in?

Sorry for the long post, appreciate any information you can give me. Thanks!

[sunshineleith]

Originally Posted by Yhbv24

Hello, I had a question I thought could possibly be answered here.

Basically, there was a law passed on April 17, 2009 (Bill C-37), which (as it applies to me) limited Canadian citizenship to first generation Canadians born abroad, and also retroactively gives citizenship to people who were born to Canadian parent(s) if they didn't apply for it or lost it.

My father had a Canadian mother, and through this law was given citizenship retroactive to his date of birth. However, he was born outside Canada, as was I, making me the second generation born abroad to a Canadian citizen.

My question is, does the law "grandfather" me in so I could acquire citizenship through my father? Or is it retroactive in limiting citizenship to only first generation Canadians born abroad?

My understanding is that the law is proactive, and limits citizenship to children born AFTER the date.

From the actual bill: "This new rule cutting off citizenship after one generation born abroad is only applicable to people born after the rule comes into effect."

However, it still seems vague to me.

If anyone happens to be knowledgeable about Canadian immigration procedures, would this then make me eligible for citizenship, since my father has now been a Canadian citizen since birth, and I am apparently grandfathered in?

Sorry for the long post, appreciate any information you can give me. Thanks!

From what I can understand, he gets it, but you don't. He is a first generation "born abroad" but you are second generation born abroad and therefore would not qualify for Canadian citizenship.


Amendments to the Citizenship Act – Bill C-37
As a remedy to situations of loss of citizenship, a subject studied in the past by the Committee, the Government implemented Bill C-37 on April 17, 2009, which was passed a year earlier with unanimous support by Parliament. The Bill was a broad and generous legislative solution to resolve many problems that had arisen due to outdated provisions in current and former citizenship legislation.

Citizenship was restored or given to:
Persons who became citizens when Canada’s first citizenship act took effect on January 1, 1947 (including people born in Canada prior to 1947 and war brides) and who then lost their citizenship;

Persons who were born in Canada or who became Canadian on or after January 1, 1947, and who then lost citizenship; and

Persons born abroad to a Canadian on or after January 1, 1947, if not already a citizen, but only if they are the first generation born abroad.

[Yhbv24]

But what about this part:

"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."

And also:

"Situation 1.
A person lost citizenship for any reason other than the following three reasons (subsequently referred to as the “three prohibited reasons”):

the person renounced his or her Canadian citizenship;

the person’s Canadian citizenship was revoked for false representation, fraud or concealment of material circumstances; or

the person is a second- or later generation Canadian born abroad since 15 February 1977 who lost citizenship because he of she failed to retain it by age 28 (new section 3(1)(f))."

The last section is more applicable to me, but I didn't lose citizenship because of my failure to retain it as I'm not 28 yet. Also, this bill repealed the requirement that you must apply to retain citizenship before the age of 28.

[sunshineleith]

Yes actually, rereadiing it it sounds like you are entitled to Canadian citizenship and that it is only the second generation born abroad after a certain date that are ineligible. I would contact a Canadian consulate to make sure though!

[Yhbv24]

Yeah, I'm actually going to be in BC for a few days later this week, so immigration is my first priority.

It's very confusing, as my situation seems to have been left out. I also found this from their FAQ:

Frequently asked questions:
Applying for citizenship

New citizenship rules

I was born in the second generation outside Canada and will turn 28 after April 17, 2009. Do I still need to take steps to retain my Canadian citizenship before my 28th birthday?

No. Everyone who was a citizen when the law came into force will keep their citizenship, even if they were born in the second or subsequent generations outside Canada. The new citizenship law eliminates the need for those born outside Canada in the second or subsequent generations to retain their citizenship. However, if someone who was born in the second generation outside Canada turned 28 before April 17, 2009, and did not take steps to retain their citizenship, they are no longer considered a citizen as of their 28th birthday.

The new law will not restore their citizenship. People who ceased to be Canadian citizens can apply to resume their Canadian citizenship."

The confusing part is, I have never been a Canadian citizen, at least to my knowledge. So on the one hand, it sounds like I am eligible, but on the other, it doesn't explicitly say it, only implies it.

There's also this, also from the FAQ:

Frequently asked questions:
Applying for citizenship

New citizenship rules

How does the new law simplify citizenship?

The previous law required people born in the second or subsequent generations outside Canada to submit an application to retain (keep) their citizenship, and to either live in Canada for one year or prove a substantial connection to Canada before their 28th birthday. If they did not do either of these things, they would have lost their citizenship, sometimes without even knowing. The old law was criticized for being complicated, confusing, and leading to uncertainty for many people about their citizenship status. The new law simplifies rules by eliminating this requirement.

It talks about LOSING citizenship, and again, implies that I had/have it, but no longer need to actively apply to keep it.

But then there's this, which seems to say the opposite:

Some people did not become citizens under the new law. This includes people who:

-were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent, who are not already citizens or who lost their citizenship in the past, and who were born in the second or next generation abroad (this includes people who failed to retain citizenship)

Again, I don't think I have ever been a Canadian citizen.

It seems like this negates what I previously posted, unless it's talking about people born after the law came into effect.

Sorry for this long post, I am just looking for any answers, and everything seems contradictory.

Here is another section from the "Sample scenarios" that seems to again go in my favor:

8. Second or subsequent generation born abroad after 1977

Fictional case: Maria is a fourth-generation Canadian born abroad:

Maria was born in Belize in 2001 and has never lived in Canada.
Maria’s father was born in Belize in 1978 to a Canadian mother (Maria’s grandmother).
Maria’s grandmother was born out of wedlock in Belize in 1955 to a Canadian mother (Maria’s great-grandmother).
Maria’s great-grandmother was born in Belize in 1937 to a father who was born in Ontario in 1915 (Maria’s great-great-grandfather). Maria is a citizen today and must take steps and apply to keep her citizenship before she turns 28.
Citizenship status: Under this bill, Maria would remain a citizen and would no longer be required to apply, before her 28th birthday, to retain her Canadian citizenship.

If Maria has children abroad after the bill comes into force, her children would not be citizens.

Now here is what I'm getting from all of this. Seeing as I'm not yet 28, and seeing as my father was granted citizenship retroactively to his date of birth, it would seem as though I have citizenshipship, but no "proof of citizenship" papers, and I no longer need to apply to retain it before I am 28; it's automatic.

Of course, all of this would have to be discussed at an immigration office, which I plan to do when I'm up in Canada, but I'm just trying to understand my status, as it seems there isn't a special section for my situation.

Again, to whomever takes the time to read this and respond, thanks for your help.

[Cornerguy1]

For what it's worth, here's my take.

You are a person classified as being the second generation born abroad to a Canadian citizen, and because you were born after 1977 you will not need to file application to retain your right to citizenship under the new law.

I sense a lot of the confusion lies in the fact that you don't feel you've been a Canadian citizen because no pro-active steps were taken to affirm it when in the eyes of Canadian citizenship law you've been a Canadian citizen regardless of the fact that you haven't filed any applications.

Your idea to talk to the actual immigration officials is right on the money. No amount of internet discussion is as valuable or binding as the opinions and decisions of the actual bureaucrats .

[Yhbv24]

Thanks for the response. Indeed, I'm just trying to get a sense of other people's opinions, just to get some other ideas on the logic here, which helps me understand the law.

In regards to your third paragraph, I think you're right, although it is still weird since I've never really even considered that fact (that I could already be a citizen despite the fact that no steps were taken to "attain" it).

[sunshineleith]

Yes exactly - sounds like you do have Canadian ctizenship, but just don't have the paperwork that demonstrates it! Basically what they have removed is the need for people to "do" something to activate citizenship, and those that hadn't done so, "lost" it, but that has now been reversed and anyone that had lost it now has it reinstated. Hello confusing!!

[Yhbv24]

Upon reading what I wrote, there is something I forgot to mention. My father received his citizenship (first generation born abroad) after I was born, and only with the passage of Bill C-37 was his citizenship retroactive. So I don't believe I was a citizen (as I was born before he became a citizen) before the passage of the bill. So this bill not only applies to me, but my father as well, as his mother was born in Canada and was a Canadian citizen.

Only after the bill would I be a child of a Canadian citizen at my birth, but I'd also be a second generation born abroad. I think this is OK, but it's still confusing.

I am pretty sure that the "second generation born abroad" clauses all apply to people born after April 17, 2009, but it's fairly unclear to me.

[Yhbv24]

OK, I am going to attempt to sum up my "argument" for why I'd be a Canadian citizen.

First, I would now be considered a

Second- and subsequent generation Canadians(2) born abroad since the current Citizenship Act came into effect on 15 February 1977.

which is one of the groups of the "lost Canadians." As my father, since the bill's passing, has been a Canadian citizen since his birth, I have now been born to a Canadian citizen. I am also under 28 years of age.

Secondly,

Situation 1. A person lost citizenship for any reason other than the following three reasons (subsequently referred to as the “three prohibited reasons”):

the person renounced his or her Canadian citizenship;
the person’s Canadian citizenship was revoked for false representation, fraud or concealment of material circumstances; or
the person is a second- or later generation Canadian born abroad since 15 February 1977 who lost citizenship because he of she failed to retain it by age 28 (new section 3(1)(f)).

I think it can be argued that I "lost" citizenship because my father never had it because he was born abroad to a Canadian mother before 1977. Since his birth is now retroactive, I am under 28, and it states "for any reason, I think that I would fall into this category. I think the following passage also applies to me, since it deals with those that never had citizenship:

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

Finally,

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)).

Since the law made my father's citizenship retroactive, it seems to have made my citizenship retroactive as well, through his. Since I was born before the new law, and am under 28, I think I have a good case. If anyone can point out a flaw in the argument, please do! This has really been bugging me because I would love to move to Canada, went to university there, and have many good friends there. And I know the national anthem =).