Lost Canadians

[Topaz]

I just don't know what to think of THIS government and the changes it made concerning Canadians born before 1947, when anyone born after, was deemed a Canadian . The probably is all born before are not deemed a Canadian if I read the article right and therefore, would that mean ALL MP's and Senators parents aren't either??? Any soldier who lived in Canada should be deemed a Canadian, especially he they were living here. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/lost-canadian-hopes-overhaul-canadian-citizenship-laws-court-213921885.html

[PIK]

Did they have canadian citizenship? And if they did , did the government take it away?

[August1991]

I just don't know what to think of THIS government and the changes it made concerning Canadians born before 1947, when anyone born after, was deemed a Canadian . The probably is all born before are not deemed a Canadian if I read the article right and therefore, would that mean ALL MP's and Senators parents aren't either??? Any soldier who lived in Canada should be deemed a Canadian, especially he they were living here. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/lost-canadian-hopes-overhaul-canadian-citizenship-laws-court-213921885.html

This government? Why pick on Harper's government? It was the Liberal King government that wrote the 1947 law. And that's the problem. This was Canada's first citizenship law and it leaves numerous strange definitions/cases/anomalies. (eg. I think that a woman born in Canada can lose her Canadian citizenship if she married a non-British subject, left Canada before 1947 and has resided abroad since then.) I don;t know the specifics of this particular case but in general, the Canadian federal government has been generous (under more recent citizenship laws) in accepting claims to citizenship.

I would not be surprised to learn that money is the heart of her complaint. She may want access to a pension or health care.

And that raises a more interesting question: "What is citizenship?" Usually, a citizen of a country has a right to live in the country. They may have a right to obtain a passport and vote in elections.

That's all? In Canada, to receive OAP, you have to have been a citizen/permanent resident residing in Canada for 10 years and to receive access to health care, you have to be a permanent resident/citizen residing in a province for three months.

Once the State involves itself in private matters, the bureaucracy takes control: and we now define citizenship, residency and permanent residency. At present, I think "residency" matters more than "citizenship" - although tax lawyer may have a different interpretation of the bureaucratic regulations.

======

This quote from the article made me laugh:

If the government is "able to maintain that citizenship is only something that is defined by Parliament, and not simply defined by the law and Constitution of Canada, then they have a lot more flexibility on what they can do with citizenship and where they can allow and deny citizenship," said Straith.

Uh, Counselor Strait (as Americans say), citizenship is not defined in our constitution. So, it's a federal law that defines it. The surprise for many people is that we did not have a citizenship law before 1947. (IOW, there was no clear criteria to be a Canadian citizen before 1947. We were simply "British subjects" - and that term too is rather fluid.) Moreover, it's a greater surprise to learn that most people traveled without passports before World War I.

Imagine such a world! Most people boarded the Titanic without a passport or a visa.

Edited July 23, 2013 by August1991

[Topaz]

This government? Why pick on Harper's government? It was the Liberal King government that wrote the 1947 law. And that's the problem. This was Canada's first citizenship law and it leaves numerous strange definitions/cases/anomalies. (eg. I think that a woman born in Canada can lose her Canadian citizenship if she married a non-British subject, left Canada before 1947 and has resided abroad since then.) I don;t know the specifics of this particular case but in general, the Canadian federal government has been generous (under more recent citizenship laws) in accepting claims to citizenship.

I would not be surprised to learn that money is the heart of her complaint. She may want access to a pension or health care.

And that raises a more interesting question: "What is citizenship?" Usually, a citizen of a country has a right to live in the country. They may have a right to obtain a passport and vote in elections.

That's all? In Canada, to receive OAP, you have to have been a citizen/permanent resident residing in Canada for 10 years and to receive access to health care, you have to be a permanent resident/citizen residing in a province for three months.

Once the State involves itself in private matters, the bureaucracy takes control: and we now define citizenship, residency and permanent residency. At present, I think "residency" matters more than "citizenship" - although tax lawyer may have a different interpretation of the bureaucratic regulations.

======

This quote from the article made me laugh:

Uh, Counselor Strait (as Americans say), citizenship is not defined in our constitution. So, it's a federal law that defines it. The surprise for many people is that we did not have a citizenship law before 1947. (IOW, there was no clear criteria to be a Canadian citizen before 1947. We were simply "British subjects" - and that term too is rather fluid.) Moreover, it's a greater surprise to learn that most people traveled without passports before World War I.

Imagine such a world! Most people boarded the Titanic without a passport or a visa.

I don't remember hearing any problems for these people before the Harper government, have you??

[August1991]

I don't remember hearing any problems for these people before the Harper government, have you??

Since 1947, there have been many - increasingly in the 1980s, as older women became widows and wanted to return "home". If you're hearing about this now, it's because 1) some journalists utterly loathe Harper, his party and their supporters and 2) the Internet makes these individual cases more easy to find.

In fact though, it's nothing new. Rather, I thought that most of these women were dead by now.

=====

BTW, the federal government has revised Canada's citizenship law on several occasions since 1947. Trudeau had a libertarian view of citizenship and notable revisions occurred in his 1977 law.

Edited July 23, 2013 by August1991

[guyser]

Did they have canadian citizenship? And if they did , did the government take it away?

yes

[guyser]

The surprise for many people is that we did not have a citizenship law before 1947.

You meant 1847 right ?

We have had a citizenship law since 1867...The BNA Act.

[August1991]

You meant 1847 right ?

We have had a citizenship law since 1867...The BNA Act.

No, Canada's first citizenship act took effect in 1947. 1947

The BNA Act simply left the question of citizenship to the federal government. Heck, now that I think about it, there may be no mention of "citizenship" or "nationality" in the BNA.

Edited July 23, 2013 by August1991

[guyser]

No, Canada's first citizenship act took effect in 1947. 1947

The BNA Act simply left the question of citizenship to the federal government. Heck, now that I think about it, there may be no mention of "citizenship" or "nationality" in the BNA.

Maybe because it was termed as Nationality not citizen?

There was the Immigration Act of 1910 that created the staus of Canadian Citizen (still a subject of Britain) , then the Canadian Nationals Act 1921 where the addition of a Canadian National was created.

Best leave it for the bambino to clarify.

[Wilber]

Since 1947, there have been many - increasingly in the 1980s, as older women became widows and wanted to return "home". If you're hearing about this now, it's because 1) some journalists utterly loathe Harper, his party and their supporters and 2) the Internet makes these individual cases more easy to find.

In fact though, it's nothing new. Rather, I thought that most of these women were dead by now.

=====

BTW, the federal government has revised Canada's citizenship law on several occasions since 1947. Trudeau had a libertarian view of citizenship and notable revisions occurred in his 1977 law.

Good grief, she's lived here since she was two and her father was a Canadian service man serving overseas If she would qualify for citizenship if the same thing happened today, she should qualify now, Picking 1947 as a reason to reject her is bullshit.

My mother was a war bride, I was conceived in Britain and born in Canada. I could very well have been in this womans shoes.

[August1991]

Good grief, she's lived here since she was two and her father was a Canadian service man serving overseas ....

That's her side of the story. I suspect that there's more involved but as I said, I don't know this particular case.

[Wilber]

That's her side of the story. I suspect that there's more involved but as I said, I don't know this particular case.

Wouldn't be hard to check and no one is disputing it so far.

[August1991]

There was the Immigration Act of 1910 that created the staus of Canadian Citizen (still a subject of Britain) , then the Canadian Nationals Act 1921 where the addition of a Canadian National was created.

Immigration is part of the BNA Act, and its a shared jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government.

No doubt that in 1867, immigration was more important than citizenship or "nationality".

But Guyser, your research is interesting.

Edited July 24, 2013 by August1991

[g_bambino]

There was the Immigration Act of 1910 that created the staus of Canadian Citizen....

Best leave it for the bambino to clarify.

Not much to clarify; the Immigration Act 1910 did indeed make the classification of Canadian citizen: S.2(f): "Canadian citizen" means--i. a person born in Canada who has not become an alien; ii. a British subject who has Canadian domicile; and iii. a person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not become an alien or lost Canadian domicile. It goes on to say "a child who has not been landed in Canada [shall not] be held to have acquired Canadian citizenship through its father or mother being a Canadian citizen." "Landed" is said to mean (S.2(p)) "lawful admission into Canada by an officer under this act". Now, when the Citizenship Act 1947 was enacted, it gave citizenship to people who, if not born here, had been "naturalized" or acquired "domicile", but nothing about people who were "landed". To acquire "domicile", one had to, according to the Immigration Act 1910, live in Canada for three years, but later increased by the imperial British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 to five years. Since Scott was born in 1945, there's no way she could've lived in Canada long enough to be considered "domiciled", thereby making her inelligible to be a Canadian citizen in 1947. Depending on when she arrived here and whether or not she was deemed "landed", Scott may have briefly been a Canadian citizen and then lost that status.

I don't get the Crown's argument at all.

[ed.: sp]

Edited July 24, 2013 by g_bambino

[hitops]

Since 1947, there have been many - increasingly in the 1980s, as older women became widows and wanted to return "home". If you're hearing about this now, it's because 1) some journalists utterly loathe Harper, his party and their supporters and 2) the Internet makes these individual cases more easy to find.

In fact though, it's nothing new. Rather, I thought that most of these women were dead by now.

=====

BTW, the federal government has revised Canada's citizenship law on several occasions since 1947. Trudeau had a libertarian view of citizenship and notable revisions occurred in his 1977 law.

No don't you get it? Things that happened decades ago are Harper's fault too.

[guyser]

Not much to clarify;

And yet....you did. Thank you

[PIK]

If it is a simple case , I imagine it will be fixed shortly.

[August1991]

Not much to clarify; the Immigration Act 1910 did indeed make the classification of Canadian citizen: S.2(f): "Canadian citizen" means--i. a person born in Canada who has not become an alien; ii. a British subject who has Canadian domicile....

You make a good point Bambino (and corrected me) that while Canada's first citizenship law dates from 1947, we had the notion of "Canadian citizenship" prior to this - in 1910 in fact. You'll note however that this law is an "Immigration Act" and in it, a "British subject" was automatically deemed a "Canadian citizen" by mere residency. (I believe this generosity of citizenship was maintained in the 1947 act. To put this in modern perspective, imagine if an American citizen could become a Canadian citizen simply by choosing to live in Canada.)

I think the point that I'm making (and tried to make above) is that the definition of a distinct Canadian citizen (distinct from being British) was a process. We "celebrate" July 1 as Confederation Day, the "birth" of Canada, but that's simply not true.

[potential thread drift]

One of the few, possibly single, cataclysmic/revolutionary events in Canadian history was the transfer of New France to Britain in the Treaty of Paris of 1763, the so-called "Conquest". But that was not a popular uprising or revolt. It was a change in the realm of the Tsars.

Edited July 25, 2013 by August1991

[Keepitsimple]

As with August, I too am wondering what motivated her action. Did she know she was not a Canadian citizen? Anyone applying for a Social Insurance Number has to prove their "status".....so it seems she must have known. The government's position seems fair - at least in legal terms.....but I would think that on a case-by-case basis, there should be allowances for a fast path to citizenship for these "lost" Canadians.

Edit: Just took a brief look at CPP and OAS eligibility. You do not have to be a citizen to collect. CPP is an insurance plan - paying into it provides you with retirement benefits - Canadian or not. OAS in general, requires long term residency for eligibility.

Edited August 20, 2013 by Keepitsimple