Informed Choices

Once again, critics of the government's new measures in Canada's immigration law are crying foul over its intent. Conventionally, children born outside Canada to Canadian citizens who were themselves born elsewhere, were automatically considered Canadian citizens. This, despite that those children might never choose to live in Canada. But having citizenship was comforting - just in case - one never knows.

Bill C-37, comprising a number of amendments to the Citizenship Act is a response to a recently revealed problem resulting in what has been termed "lost Canadians", represented by tens of thousands of war brides and their children who came to Canada with Canadian soldiers, after World War II. They, and others with children who moved to the U.S. with their parents were never fully advised of their citizenship rights.

Children born outside the country to Canadian parents must affirm their citizenship before turning age 28, in order to maintain that citizenship under the current law. If they were ignorant of this provision, and did nothing, they were stripped of their citizenship. As a result several hundred thousand people were adversely affected, discovering too late they did not hold Canadian citizenship, while they thought they did.

Bill C-37 retroactively restored the citizenship privileges of most affected "lost Canadians". And the new provisions of Bill-37 will automatically grant citizenship to first-generation children born abroad of Canadian citizens, without a later requirement for confirmation. And that's where it stops. For future generations of children born to Canadian citizens aboard - third- and fourth-generation - will no longer be allowed automatic citizenship.

There are exemptions for children of parents abroad as Canadian Forces personnel or for Canada's Diplomatic representatives. This new law will have its potential victims in those working for international aid organizations, academics, scientists and businesspeople who choose to work abroad. Among others. But that surely is their choice, and choices do have consequences.

The simple fact of the matter is, if there is no commitment as a Canadian to remaining in Canada, there should be no expectation that Canada remains committed to those who have permanently left their shores, on behalf of their successive generations. This is reasonable. This is taking citizenship entirely too lightly, as a useful commodity, when it is clearly a lifetime commitment from both ends.

As an example, when the British removed themselves as administrators of Hong Kong and left that island finally in an historic and controversial transfer to Chinese rule, many entrepreneurs and business people in Hong Kong were decidedly nervous about what the future would bring, despite China's declaration that she would do nothing to upset the economic equilibrium of that island state.

She was good to her word, and indeed, post-transfer, Hong Kong's commercial success became a template for China's relaxation into the capitalist mode to enhance the economic future of the entire country. But in the nervous interim between intent and transfer, wealthy Hong Kong Chinese made application to come to Canada as refugees, and their investment wealth paved their way for citizenship.

Canadian citizenship became a useful and valuable insurance against the fear of economic disruption in Hong Kong, affording alternative options should the worst come to fruition. It never did, and many Canadian citizens of Chinese extraction from Hong Kong returned to their homes there, secure in the knowledge that their children would automatically be given Canadian citizenship.

Gambling on the best of both possible worlds, and a soft cushy landing whatever the outcome. Nice, of course, for stifling peoples' fears, but trivializing in a very real sense, commitment to Canada as a Canadian citizen. In the case of Lebanese refugees coming to Canada during the Lebanese civil war, those Lebanese who were given citizenship returned in huge permanent numbers to Lebanon once peace was attained.

Later to call upon the government of Canada to rescue them when their original country once again became a place of questionable refuge - and then to return once again to Lebanon, post-war, while the Canadian taxpayer picked up the considerable rescue tab.

Immigration Minister Diane Finley, explained that Canadian parents still had the option of taking their foreign-born (second- and third-generation) offspring into Canada as landed immigrants who could then apply for citizenship.

As for those families who decide not to live in Canada, she said, "the legacy of Canadian citizenship should not be passed along by endless generations living abroad. We must protect its value by ensuring that citizens have a real connection to this country. To do otherwise would be to sell our citizenship short and would not be fair to all of those who have come to Canada and made it their home."

It's only common sense. It's completely fair. It's inordinately just.