Discussion Board
Family Tree DNA
Other's Stories
 View My Guestbook
 Sign My Guestbook  
bobbynorthlake@gmail.com
Write Prime Minister Harper
MP Andrew Telegdi, Chair, Commons Committee on Citizenship & Immigration
"Temporary Home" by Carrie Underwood

"My Statement to the House of Commons Committee"


Good Day, eh!                                                        

BORN IN CANADA BUT NOT CANADIAN?

Lost Canadian Children are natural-born Canadians, without having to earn or qualify to be worthy of citizenship, their God-given birthright gives each inalienable rights to nationality that can't be taken away by civil government, except by forfeiture. Parliamentarians gave little of the future and the unfairness they'd create for these children, wherein nationality and citizenship were stripped from them virtually forever!

Each story is unique, in mine, Canada claimed I lost nationality and citizenship "automatically" as a child when my mother brought me to the States. My relatives, MP's, Senators and House of Commons Members, even strangers, could never understand why I wasn't a Canadian citizen, even more so a dual citizen! I was a mere child, not having attained the age of majority to renounce or acquire a country's citizenship, nor given due process or choice of allegiance as accorded by the Canadian Citizenship Act!

The 1977 Citizenship Act came along in an attempt to correct the law by making it impossible to loose nationality and citizenship. However, it was a failure and only continued to be unjustifiably unfair to those of us who lost it automatically prior to 1977 who had to still deal with the inequities, injustices and consequences of archaic laws! If laws supposedly evolved to correct past injustices for others, including children born abroad, Japanese immigrants, First Nations, even Senators and House of Commons Members born outside Canada, why hadn't it evolved for those of us born in Canada?

It was apparent, Parliament would have to pass a bill that would .... "REDRESS the years of unfairness and heartache of all born in Canada whom as children unjustifiably and automatically lost Nationality and Citizenship. It should be made right once and for all, anything but "Automatic Resumption" for Lost Canadian Children and their Descendants will only continue to divide and torment those families for years to come!"

Allow me to introduce my story. My name is Robert Finbar Brown, "Downhome" everyone knows me as Bobby Brown.
I was born 1944 in North Lake, Prince Edward Island, ironically, that was three years before Canada even had a Citizenship Act! With a strong SCOTTISH family history, my ggg-grandfather Duncan MacLaren journeyed to P.E.I. from Scotland onboard the "FALMOUTH" in 1770. The picture with my brother Ross, was taken the day I went to the States. Although I was only six, I remember it as if it was yesterday, especially how I felt leaving my brother, aunts and uncles. I remember saying good bye to all my cats and our horse Flicka, but most of all my buddy, Rover. For certain, the fondest memories on the Island was of a simpler time where kindness, respect, love of family and country was formed in those early years, never to be forgotten!

          

I was made a naturalized U.S. citizen on January 26, 1955 as a child ten years of age, when I was told to raise my hand and pledge an OATH to be a citizen of the United States! That innocent act as a minor, could never change my BIRTHRIGHT, my heritage or feeling in my heart that Canada was my true home, the States only my temporary home.

 



Early trips to the States weren't easy; my mother sought work as a domestic; we moved from one job to another, one room at a time, many nights we went to bed hungry. One employer, refusing to have worker's children in their home, meant my being placed in a Massachusetts foster home. I remember the rows of beds and treatment sometimes dealt to the children.

The UNITED STATES was "THE LAND OF PROMISE". What is so obviously different then, Congress had the common sense not to bankrupt it's citizens and future generations by handing out WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS and MEDICAL to IMMIGRANTS! Life moved on, I attended American schools and at age ten became a citizen but even in my young heart I was always looking forward to going downhome, even if it was for only a few weeks in the summer. I grew up without knowing details behind my immigration or of my Canadian family I left behind. I married my beautiful wife Gloria in 1968, we honeymooned on PEI and brought up three children on Cape Cod, that was close enough for us to make frequent jaunts to the Island. I remember saying one day we would move back and rebuild the old homestead where I was born. That's gone now, only bits of the frame of the old spool bed I was born on remained.

"WHEN ARE YOU COMING HOME BOBBY"

That's what my relatives always asked, oh God, I wish they were still around, they'd be so happy and proud of me regaining my citizenship! Unfortunately their words turned to sadness and desperation as the years rolled by, especially after coming to realize what both countries had done. I presumed being born in Canada made me an automatic dual citizen, when crossing the border, I always took pride showing my birth certificate to prove I was Canadian! In fact, in 1987 I made plans to move my family to the PEI with an idea to start a small business. I applied to the CIC but was devastated to be denied citizenship resumption. I re-applied in 1995 and 2001 and in February, 2002. Finally, CIC closed my application without any possible consideration or referral to a citizenship judge!

In early 2000, in Los Angeles, an unsympathetic young Asian Immigration officer, herself a dual citizen, had the audacity to tell my daughter and I to forget FOREVER about ever trying to regain our Canadian citizenship!

It was definitely time to journey North to settle this once and for all or forever hold my peace! I'd have to wait another eight months for written correspondence from CIC but I was able to spread my story around and contact the office of M.P. Dr. James Lunney on Vancouver Island. Though Mr. Lunney never took up my cause personally, his associates, John McLaughlin and Gayle Goodman tried exhaustively to help me deal with the Sydney CIC. Perhaps, in a small way, we were able to stir the pot and perhaps perk up a few ears in Parliament.

 

Vancouver Island - April 19, 2002
"The News"- Parksville, B.C. www.pqbnews.com

On a trip home to Prince Edward Island on family business, I spoke with Lawrence A. Macaulay, P.C., M.P. A true gentleman, he took time to listen and his disbelief of the decisions made by CIC was heartening, however we both realized there was still a long road ahead.

You see, I'd always respectfully disagreed with the CIC. Their decisions solely based on Subsection 20 (1) of the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1952 reads; "when the responsible parent of a minor child ceases to be a Canadian citizen, the minor child would cease if he acquired the nationality of his responsible parent simultaneously; the inclusion of the minor child in the mother's U.S. naturalization resulted in automatic loss of the minor child's Canadian citizenship effective January 26, 1955." Certainly an adult is held accountable if they renounce citizenship but our society and laws say a child is never held accountable for acts of a parent, the link between child and parent is a particularly unique and intimate nature wherein the child has no choice who their parents are or where, when and if they choose to divorce or immigrate, therefore Canada and CIC is holding me to a doctrine of "discrimination by association".

 

FOREIGN DIVORCES & CHILD CUSTODY

In my particular case Canada should have questioned the validity of the foreign child custody decision made in Massachusetts in 1953. That was about responsible parent and competent court jurisdiction status. The chance of the foreign custody decision being invalid in this case is reasonable to consider, for each country has it's own constitution and jurisdictional laws that provide protection or punishment; respective of which country your a citizen. Ultimately, the CIC decision is incorrect, it is based on flawed information gathered and relied upon by the United States Immigration and Naturalization (INS) with regards to a custody decision which should never have been adjudged by a Massachusetts court, according to it's own rules and standards. M.G.L. Section 208 says that even if residency and cause occurring without Mass were met, (Exceptions rule Section 5), it does not usurp other parts of the rule. First, parties had to have first lived together as husband and wife in Mass, which clearly never happened (Domicile rule Section 4). Secondly, actions for divorce shall be filed, heard and determined in the probate court, held for the county where one of the parties lives, except that if either party still resides in the county where the parties last lived together (as my father did) the action shall be heard and determined in a court for that county. Since this was not the case, the Mass custody should have been adjudged of no force or effect in Canada as it should have been in Mass (Venue rule Section 6). Massachusetts would not honor a divorce for it's inhabitants for a cause occurring there, who go into another jurisdiction, it would also contradict Mass law if it's court effected a divorce for parties who resided in and the cause occurred in another county. (Foreign divorces Section 39). Therefore, it can be confidently concluded a judgment effected for citizens of an entirely different country should be of no force or effect in Massachusetts.

It is generally the understood standard that when you're in a country that does not recognize you as a citizen, it's laws do not take priority over laws of the country of which you are a citizen. Although my mother's intentions were honorable, she was still a Canadian citizen when granted custody in 1953; she did not become a U.S. citizen until 1955 when the INS accepted the flawed child custody decision. If you play it backwards; with the Massachusetts custody decree of no force and effect; the INS naturalization proceedings would be null and void and subsequent decisions by CIC wrong; and we know two wrongs don't make a right!

 

ILLEGALITY OF A MINOR TO RENOUNCE OR ACQUIRE!

Canadian Law contradicts itself on "AUTOMATIC" Loss of Citizenship for a natural-born!

In 1955 Part 111. Subsection 16 (1) of the 1952 Citizenship Act elaborated on how natural-born Canadian citizens like myself can renounce Canadian citizenship; "Where a natural-born Canadian citizen, at his birth or during his minority, or any Canadian citizen on marriage, became or becomes under the law of any other country a national or citizen of that country, if, after attaining the full age of twenty-one years, or after the marriage, he makes, while not under disability (minor), and still such a national or citizen, a declaration renouncing his Canadian citizenship, he shall thereupon cease to be a Canadian citizen."

Canadian Law contradicts itself on "RESUMPTION" of Citizenship for a natural-born!

In addition, the construction of Subsection 20 (3) gave discretion to the Minister to resume the citizenship of a person, who as a minor child ceased to be a Canadian citizen with "Where the Minister, in his discretion, permits a person, who as a minor child ceased to be a Canadian citizen, to make a declaration in accordance with the regulations, that he wishes to resume Canadian citizenship and the said person makes the declaration within one year after attaining the age of twenty-one years or within such longer period as the Minister may allow in special circumstance, such person, upon acceptance of his declaration by the Minister, again becomes a Canadian citizen. 1950, c. 29, s. 8.

These old sections emphatically emphasized that a person cannot renounce if they are under disability as a "minor". Lawmakers had always been in unison on this point, for sure they never had the intention interpreted by the CIC of "Subsection 20 (1)" allowing for automatic loss of citizenship for a minor!

 

WAR ISSUES

Prior to January 1, 1947, there was no citizenship statute in existence. Canada was in a curious position of being a nation without citizens. This was corrected on January 1, 1947 with the Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c.15 (the "Former Act"). The Former Act recognized Canadian citizenship for the first time. The current Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 (the "Current Act") replaced the Former Act on February 15, 1977. It contains various provisions designed to preserve the citizenship rights of citizens under the Former Act. It also recognizes limited citizenship rights for persons born in Canada before the Former Act came into effect.

The Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947 was enacted by Parliament to respond to World War II issues. "Canada and the Early Cold war 1943-1957" There were serious concerns of espionage involving Japanese nationals and their children whom the government sought to "repatriate". See "Ottawa, April 18th, 1955 JAPANESE IMMIGRATION - RETURN OF FORMER RESIDENTS OF CANADA AND SPECIAL CASES"

German-born immigrants had returned to Germany to fight for Hitler against Canada and the allies. After the war, they could reclaim Canadian citizenship and residency, seeking asylum. A Canadian law declaring that these men had lost their Canadian naturalization would be of no effect if their Canadian-born children sponsored them right back into Canada therefore the "War Measures Act" was utilized to revoke the citizenship of Japanese and German children, regardless of their Canadian birth! There was little concern then over discrimination or statelessness for the law and custom of many European and Asian nations presumed citizenship to pass to all children, no matter where they were born, via the rights of the father.

The downside of the Act created "Lost Canadian Children" who suffered automatic loss of nationality for no other reason than that Canada was still in a war mode with Japan and Germany! Constitutional lawyers should have recognized the problem years ago, we should never have been lumped into the same group; to be let to suffer the consequence of a war act made only to discourage a former enemy from resettling in Canada!

 

REDRESS ISSUE

My days spent in a state run foster home in Massachusetts wasn't much different than what any expelled Japanese child and their descendant went through as a result of Canada's failure to protect it's children and their rights to nationality and citizenship! Lost Canadian Children should be entitled to no more or no less than what the Japanese received in their redress package. That authorized a special grant of citizenship to persons of Japanese ancestry, still alive, who were expelled from Canada and had their citizenship revoked in the period from 1941 to 1949. ALL descendants of such persons are eligible for citizenship, as long as they were living on September 22, 1988, regardless of whether the person who actually suffered is still alive.

 

RIGHTS OF THE CHILD & THE UNITED NATIONS

Prime Minister Paul Martin said in a speech in Windsor, Ontario - May 7, 2000; "Canada's success as a society has depended to a large extent on its success as a political experiment. Our political system has helped to nurture civility, compassion, prudence and a sense of fairness - the qualities that most clearly define us as a people. The solution to the challenges we face in the modern world must be to strengten that system of democracy, not weaken it."

I'm placing faith in Mr. Martin's sense of fairness and compassion to strengten not weaken democracy in Canada. Only then can Canada prove to the world it can right its wrongs at home before ever being able to truly be considered the leading representative of Rights for Children in the rest of the world! That's my hope, notwithstanding the United Nations excuse for not enforcing it's Declarations against Canada for stripping children of nationality, saying it can only strive by teaching and education to promote respect for rights and freedoms and to secure universal and effective recognition and observance. Sec. 15.1 states, "Everyone has the right to a nationality"; See Section 7- United Nations-Declaration of Human Rights Sec 15.2, "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality".

To have lost my rights in the future to Canadian citizenship as a minor without due process, shows total disregard by Canada and world authorities to my future rights and best interests, especially that of being able to reunite with family and loved ones in my country of origin.

Canada Laws claim a constant live pattern on protections for children and childhood, and in particular consideration of their interests, needs, and rights in spite of differences in treatment of minors yet it's said the "Rights of the Child" between 1950 and 1959 were largely ignored. The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959), in its preamble, states that the child "needs special safeguards and care." Another indicator of the importance of considering interests of children when making a compassionate and humanitarian decision is the ratification by Canada of the Convention on the Rights of the Child Article 8, and the recognition of the importance of children's rights and the best interests of children in other international instruments ratified by Canada. The values and principles of the Convention recognize the importance of being attentive to the rights and best interests of children when decisions are made that relate to and affect their future and with special respect for the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality."

Benner v. Canada

In 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada settled a question of discrimination wherein, children born abroad of women before 1977 who were Canadian citizens would not have qualified for citizenship; under the current Act, such children are required by the Act to make an application for citizenship and undergo a criminal and security check. In contrast, children born abroad before 1977 to a Canadian father need only register their births. In early 1997, the Supreme Court held this provision to be discriminatory and in violation of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. See Benner v. Canada, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358. It was a time married women and "minors" were amongst those not eligible for certain rights and responsibilities. Benner's Canadian citizenship was granted though he was born "abroad" in the U.S. to a Canadian mother, without the more onerous requirements of the point system. Benner challenged the courts on sexual-discrimination and won, removing the different treatment regarding citizenship rights allotted children born to Canadian mothers versus Canadian fathers. Granted neither Benner or myself had a choice of where we were born, it would appear to be a natural advantage, not a disadvantage to have been born in Canada, but why does Canada treat us differently when it comes to resumption of citizenship?

The Court said "where access to a benefit such as citizenship is restricted on the basis of something so intimately connected to and so completely beyond the control of an applicant such as gender of his or her Canadian parent,"... " that applicant may invoke the protection of s.15." of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Summarily, in dealing with loss of the benefit of citizenship were based on age instead of gender and so completely beyond the control of the minor, we should also be able to invoke these "Equality Rights" in the Charter. There's never been a discrimination case based on age surrounding a citizenship issue but the courts have anticipated they may confront one sooner or later.

 

NATIONAL ORIGIN

It would be absurd if the process for resuming Canadian citizenship would be less stringent for a foreign born, than it would be for a natural-born, that in itself would present an unjustifiable inequality. I'm a naturalized U.S. citizen that is said to have lost Canadian citizenship as a minor, as opposed to Benner a natural-born U.S. citizen who as a minor never had Canadian citizenship, the manner of how we attained U.S. citizenship shouldn't differentiate us, and like Benner, I still had a parent who's a Canadian citizen and my birth was registered as required; on those two facts alone, there shouldn't be a problem in my automatically resuming Canadian citizenship immediately, as are others deemed born "abroad."

It would invoke the protection of s. 15 of the Charter if we were dealing with discrimination based on national origin, et al, being treated differently because we were born in Canada, notwithstanding, if we were born in the States we'd be automatic Canadian citizens? That's what I've lived with; cousins and nephews born in the States easily achieving dual citizenship because their mothers, Canadian citizens living in the States ignored the law by never applying for U.S. Citizenship! My status from birth -- as a person born in Canada prior to the first Citizenship Act in 1946 of a Canadian mother and a Canadian father -- is no less a "status" than being of a particular skin color or ethnic or religious background: it is an ongoing state of affairs. Immutable characteristics arising at birth are generally more likely to be correctly classified as a "status" than are characteristics resulting from a choice to take some action. In applying s. 15 to questions of status, the critical time is not when the individual acquires the status in question but when that status is held against the person or disentitles the person to a benefit." Here, that moment was July 26, 1988 when the CIC considered and rejected my first application. Since this occurred well after s. 15 came into effect, Charter scrutiny involves neither retroactive nor retrospective application of the Charter.

Therefore, access to the valuable privilege of Canadian citizenship is restricted in different degrees depending on my national origin; national origin being one of the enumerated grounds in s. 15. Why do people in my condition, born in Canada, continue to be denied automatic right to citizenship, the same automatic right to citizenship that is granted freely to children born abroad of Canadian fathers and mothers?

Some are told they can resume citizenship if they meet the basic requirements of Subsection 11 (1) which includes lawful admission to Canada by qualifying through a point system for permanent residency. Since I'm not a business investor or silly enough to ask Canadian family members to guarantee my support for ten years, I'd not meet necessary points under a HC application. I've no qualms about medical or criminal checks, but unofficially I wouldn't qualify because of a disability and my age. I could see a person being asked to meet more onerous requirements of a point system if you're born in another country, but if you're born in Canada, no way, it's just principle! I'd not be a burden to Canadian taxpayers, I've worked all my life and contributed to Social Security since I was fifteen so my disability can remain in effect no matter where I reside. I'm a natural-born Canadian citizen and a naturalized American citizen, and I've never renounced my Canadian citizenship as an adult!

The pendulum has swung greatly in the other direction since the Citizenship Act in 1977; today, any person born to a Canadian parent in any other country, in the entire world, is automatically granted Canadian citizenship and benefits without having to qualify for the point system or ever having set foot on Canadian soil. Canada no longer requires new citizens to give up their other citizenships. The renunciatory language in the Canadian naturalization oath was ruled illegal by a Canadian court in 1973 on technical grounds and was subsequently removed -- and Canada has allowed dual citizenship without any restrictions at all since 1977. Before Sept. 11, 2001, it was even suggested the point system be removed for Afghanistan and Somalia citizens. For some years now, because of this lenient policy, the intelligence agency has warned that with the possible exception of the United States, there are more international terrorist organizations active in Canada than anywhere in the world!

Some admit there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the Citizenship Act but the following seems extraordinary. On the CIC website, under Chapter 14 - Appendix A - Acquisition of British subject status and Canadian citizenship, May 22, 1868 to present., the dateline charts under "minors" show detailed datelines, limits and responsibilities for parents and minors. It suggests I may still be a Canadian citizen and may never have stopped being one! If you were born prior to 1947 under British law, minors lost Canadian citizenship at the same time as the responsible parent became naturalized in another country. They were also in a war mode to keep their enemies from resettling after the war, but after 1947 "there's no loss of Canadian citizenship, only British!" That's not what CIC is telling me. If I lost my citizenship in 1955 as they claim, and the situation was crystallized in 1955; if that is when the status was held against me and disentitled me to the benefit of citizenship, I'd fit into the later category with "no loss of Canadian citizenship?" This would allot me the same treatment in citizenship matters as foreign born Canadians are entitled to, who have only to prove registration of their birth in order to resume Canadian citizenship.

Under Appendix B, "automatic loss of citizenship no longer exists!" Even the present Citizenship Act of 1977 C-29 (9)(1) continues with the theme of "no automatic loss of Canadian citizenship" and with protection for minors rights by stating that a citizen can on application only, renounce his citizenship (c) "as long as he was not a minor."

Summary

It would be sad example to the world if Lost Canadian Children had to petition Canadian courts on unfair and egregious minor child issues in order to enact amendments restoring citizenship for children who wouldn't have lost it under today's laws. It would be odd having to petition on discrimination based on being born in Canada while challenging automatic loss of citizenship and nationality as a child, though the courts have said those issues may have to be decided at some future date. They also agree it's a reasonable and anticipated request to know if one is right or wrong, but to arrogantly close my case without a fair open hearing leaves it still up in the air in my mind! Though Canada says it is a humanitarian and compassionate country based on natural justice that wants to reunite families, in many case, I feel they've missed the mark completely, and imagine all it's about is wanting to come Home!

For information or general inquiries email:bobbynorthlake@gmail.com

 

Other's stories and related information:

Don Chapman's Story:

Lost In My Own Country
The Toronto Sun's Story on Don Jan 28, 2004
The Toronto Sun's Story on Don! May 25, 2003
Don's Inspiring November 3, 2003, Remembrance Day Speech

Magali Castro-Gyr's Story:

Native-Born Canadian Loses Citizenship!

Government asked to allow "Lost Children" to claim Canadian citizenship!

Latest News

Canadian Nationality Law From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"April 9, 2005" - House of Commons Committee on Citizenship & Immigration

Royal Assent on S-2 "Canada's Newest Best Kept Secret"

On to the.... "House of Commons"

Judy Sgro: Without Honour or Dignity

SEEKING TERROR ON OUR SHORES!

Past Debates on Senate Bill S-2

Past Progress on S-2

News

Progress of House Bill C-343 and C-503 at LegisInfo!

Australia has always encouraged Natural- Born Australians to resume Citizenship and Nationality!

Australian Media Release, July 7, 2004 "Good Character Only"

Election! All bills dropped, next chance for C-343 in October!

Bill S-17 Act to amend the Citizenship Act - Sen. Noel Kinsella

Statement in Senate on Lost Canadian Children - Sen. Noel Kinsella Feb. 19, 2004

Links

Access to Justice Network Canada

"HEAR HIS WORDS"......

Watching the Supreme Court discussing the "Ten Commandment" controversy, it reminded me of Red Skelton's story to the children about the Pledge of Allegiance and it's "Under God" phrase. Red was one of the greatest comedians ever, he was funny not smutty and both adults and children enjoyed his show. Hear his compassionate and profound statements on his 50's television show right here! "RealAudio" is required.

Parlimentary Internet:

Canadian Human Rights Commission

CIC Canada | News Release 2003-18 OTTAWA, May 14, 2003

Convention on the Rights of the Child - November 20, 1989

Committee on the Rights of the Child - June 20, 1995

CBC News

Dept.of Justice, Canada

Canadians officially become Canadian citizens! Will History Repeat Itself?

Resumption for people who lost their citizenship as minors - (CIC Canada | News Release 2003-18) Minister of Citizenship and Immigration announces that persons who lost their Canadian citizens as minors because their parents naturalized elsewhere between 1947-77 will be allowed to become Canadian permanent residents (and, later, citizens) without having to satisfy the normal selection criteria. (May 14, 2003)

Parliament Debate Number 085

Amnesty International: Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Citizenship Policy Manual- This is a manual for use of CIC staff. Contains interpretation of Canadian citizenship law, and explanation of relevant procedures. Chapter 5 explains the department's policies on the residence requirement. The charts in Chapter 14, summarizing the current and old citizenship laws (since 1868 to present), are helpful to determine a person's claim to Canadian citizenship.

The Canadian Citizenship Reform Project: In Search of the Holy Grail? - The history of the politicians' attempts to change citizenship law over the last 25 years. Conference paper by Professor Joseph Garcea from University of Saskatchewan. (June 1, 2003)

Canadian Consulate, Beijing, China

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)

WebImmigration.com

Bill C-18 - This was Government's most recent proposal for the new Canadian Citizenship Act. This bill was introduced in 2002 but died when the House of Commons was dissolved in 2003. The document is still interesting as an illustration of the government's ideas on how the citizenship law should be reformed.

CIC Canada - Citizenship Services - Comprehensive official information on acquiring and retaining Canadian citizenship, current and proposed legislation and procedures.

Citizenship Act and Regulations - The Citizenship Act of 1977 is the current law defining acquisition and loss of Canadian citizenship. The Regulations specify the legal procedures involved.

Dual Citizenship FAQ - This document attempts to describe the current situation in United States law regarding dual citizenship. Written by an American who immigrated to Canada.

Government asked to allow "lost children" to claim Canadian citizenship. - CBC News: Persons who lost their citizenship as children before 1977, when their parents emigrated from Canada and took up citizenship elsewhere, are presenting their case to the Parliamentary Committee. (January 28, 2003)

The information contained herein is believed to be accurate and timely, but no warranty
as such is expressed or implied.  Use of this site or its content confirms acceptance of such terms and conditions.
All other product and company names are trademarks of their respective companies.
Any reproduction of copyright material is strictly prohibited and enforced.

I AM CANADIAN

bobbynorthlake@gmail.com