There is a UNconvention on statelessness which prevents persons from losing
their citizenship or having it taken away from them if they do not have
another legitimate citizenship. That would certainly have applied to
Canadian citizens. In one of my posts abroad I would sometimes have to
receive requests for cancelation of someone's Canadian citizenship and we
always insisted on proof that they would have another ciitizenship if we
accepted their request to Cancel the Canadian citizenship.
Former Visa Officer
"JAJ" wrote in message
> On 1 Oct 2006 09:56:25 -0700, email@example.com wrote:
>>> On 30 Sep 2006 11:36:23 -0700, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>> >CBC news reported that the Canadian Government announced on Friday
>>> >(Sept. 29) that the Taylor decision is being appealed. According to a
>>> >source (I didn't hear the news report myself), the Government is
>>> >planning to "remove" some provisions of the Citizenship Act, though
>>> >whether this refers to the current act (which would require a bill in
>>> >parliament) or how the former act is interpreted, I don't know. I do
>>> >know that there has been discusion of the whole concept of dual
>>> >citizenship following the costly evacuation of duals from Lebanon, so
>>> >perhaps they're planning some move on that isue.
>>> Is there any reference to the appeal from the CBC website? (I couldn't
>>> find one)
>>I looked and couldn't find one either. When I discover more, I'll post
>>it. In the meantime, here's an article on the "Lost Canadians"
> I don't believe this quote is correct:
> "Among the Lost Canadians are about 45,000 women who came to Canada as
> war brides and their 22,000 children - stateless only because their
> husbands changed citizenships."
> Canadian women did not lose citizenship under the 1946 legislation
> just because their husbands did. Only if they became naturalised US
> citizens themselves.
> Nor does this sound right:
> "Other children, not only lost their Canadian citizenship but were
> never granted another citizenship either, leaving them stateless and
> living in a kind of limbo where they can't work or receive benefits."
> As I understand it, if the child did not receive (or already have)
> another citizenship then it would not have ceased to be Canadian.