Citizenship and the First-Generation Limitation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers the current Canadian regime for citizenship by descent and what is known as the “first-generation limitation.” In 2009, Parliament legislated to limit the transmission of citizenship by descent. Known as the “first-generation limitation,” the new rules mean that a Canadian parent is only entitled to pass on their citizenship to their children born abroad if the parent themselves became a citizen by birth inside Canada or by naturalization. In other words, if an individual acquired Canadian citizenship by descent, they are not entitled to pass on their citizenship to their children unless those children are born in Canada. The imposition of the first-generation limitation was controversial, as it is much more restrictive than the previous Canadian rules or those in many comparable jurisdictions. This article outlines the operation of the current Canadian rules around citizenship, analyzes the first-generation limitation, and sets out relevant international comparisons. In evaluating the current legal regime in light of debates about the principles of jus soli, jus sanguinis, and jus nexi, we conclude that the current legal regime is overly restrictive. There are potential alternatives that would better meet the underlying values of Canadian citizenship law. Building on the foundations of jus soli, jus sanguinis, and jus nexi, we have identified three main policy options that respond to the tensions raised by the indefinite transmission of citizenship by descent in Canada: (1) a parental residency exception; (2) an adapted naturalization application, and (3) a birth registration exception. In our assessment, any of these three options would be preferable to the status quo or the pre-2009 rules.\nDans le présent article, nous examinons le régime canadien actuel en matière de citoyenneté par filiation et ce que l’on appelle la « limitation à la première génération ». En 2009, le Parlement a légiféré pour limiter la transmission de la citoyenneté par filiation. Connues sous le nom de « limitation de la première génération », les nouvelles règles signifient qu’un parent canadien n’a le droit de transmettre sa citoyenneté à ses enfants nés à l’étranger que si le parent est lui-même devenu citoyen par naissance au Canada ou par naturalisation. En d’autres termes, si une personne a acquis la citoyenneté canadienne par filiation, elle n’a pas le droit de transmettre sa citoyenneté à ses enfants, sauf si ces derniers sont nés au Canada. L’imposition de cette limite de la première génération a suscité la controverse, car elle est beaucoup plus restrictive que les règles canadiennes précédentes ou que celles de nombreuses juridictions comparables. Dans le présent article, nous décrivons le fonctionnement des règles canadiennes actuelles en matière de citoyenneté, analysons la limite de la première génération et établissons des comparaisons internationales pertinentes. En évaluant le régime juridique actuel à la lumière des débats sur les principes du jus soli (droit du sol), du jus sanguinis (droit du sang) et du jus nexi (droit par filiation), nous concluons que le régime juridique actuel est trop restrictif. Il existe d’autres possibilités qui répondraient mieux aux valeurs sousjacentes du droit de la citoyenneté canadienne. En nous appuyant sur les fondements du jus soli, du jus sanguinis et du jus nexi, nous avons identifié trois grandes options politiques qui répondent aux tensions soulevées par la transmission indéfinie de la citoyenneté par filiation au Canada : (1) une exception de résidence parentale ; (2) une demande de naturalisation adaptée, et (3) une exception d’enregistrement des naissances. Selon nous, chacune de ces trois options serait préférable au statu quo ou aux règles antérieures à 2009.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".