Federal government to amend Citizenship Act, removing ‘second-generation cut-off’ introduced by Conservative government
Canada plans to restore the right of citizens born abroad to pass their citizenship to children also born outside the country, following a court ruling that a “first-generation limit” in the law was unconstitutional.
The federal government announced legislation to amend the Citizenship Act, removing a “second-generation cut-off” introduced by the previous Conservative government, after an Ontario court ruled in December that the limit was unconstitutional.
“We wanted to take this opportunity to continue to minimize differential outcomes as much as possible for children born abroad … compared to children born to Canadians [in Canada],” said Marc Miller, the immigration minister, to reporters on Thursday. “Not everyone is entitled to [citizenship], but for those who are, it needs to be fair.”
The previous Conservative government of Stephen Harper limited citizenship by descent to a single generation in 2009 following criticism of the $85m spent evacuating 15,000 Canadian citizens from Lebanon during the brief 2006 war with Israel, with Conservatives labelling such dual nationals “Canadians of convenience”.
Since then, Canadian citizens born abroad have been unable to pass their citizenship to any children born outside the country, creating what some have called a generation of “lost Canadians” and what critics argued amounted to a two-tiered system of citizenship.
The new bill would allow a Canadian born abroad to pass on citizenship if they have a substantial connection to Canada, demonstrated by showing they have spent at least three years in the country.
The “substantial connection” clause is aimed at addressing anti-immigration critics who claim that many immigrants leave Canada after obtaining passports and will only return to claim benefits.
“Today is a historic day for lost Canadians and their families,” said Jenny Kwan, a member of parliament and immigration critic for the New Democratic party, hailing the bill.
“This unjust law caused significant hardship and suffering to many Canadian families, separates families and rendered children stateless. It failed to recognize Canadians are global citizens who travel, study and work abroad, fall in love abroad and have families abroad.”
Citizenship remains a contentious issue in a nation with such high immigration. The immigration system is “falling apart”, said Tom Kmiec, Conservative MP and shadow immigration minister, in a statement. “Common sense Conservatives will fix our immigration system that the Liberals have broken.”
It is not clear how many people could be entitled to citizenship as a result of the bill, said Don Chapman, who fought to regain his citizenship after being born in the country and then taken to the United States as a child by his father. Mr Chapman coined the term “lost Canadians” and runs an organization of the same name advocating for citizenship rights for children of Canadians abroad.
“You won’t have a huge outpouring of people moving to Canada, but you will have a huge number of people that actually qualify for Canadian citizenship,” said Mr Chapman.
American actors Gene Hackman, Shirley MacLaine, and Warren Beaty are among those who could become Canadian as a result of the bill, Mr Chapman said.
“Will they come? I don’t know. I doubt it. But they would have the right.”



Losing a passport can be a serious problem if you are abroad on holiday or a business trip.
According to Nedbank, the following steps must be immediately taken if you lose your passport:
•    Report the loss at the nearest police station.
•    Contact the nearest South African embassy, consulate or high commission.
You do not have to completely abandon your travel plans as a South African diplomatic or consular mission can issue an emergency travel certificate that will allow one to return to South Africa at the end of their trip.
One can also apply for a new passport when they apply for an emergency travel certificate.
That said, all passport applications at South African missions abroad are then sent to the Department of Home Affairs for processing.
It can still take the Department several months to process and deliver a new passport, so you’ll need an emergency travel certificate to return to South Africa.
When applying for an emergency travel certificate and a new passport at the South African embassy, you’ll need to follow these steps:
•    Complete an application form.
•    Submit your fingerprints.
•    Provide written proof of your South African citizenship using a birth certificate, identity document, certified copy of passport or driving licence (whichever you have available).
•    Provide a copy of the police report on the loss or theft of your passport.
•    Provide 2 photographs with your application.
•    Pay the prescribed fee.
Nedbank said that when travelling out of South Africa, one should keep a digitised copy of their essential items, such as passport, identity document and driving licence.
Physical copies can be stored in different items of luggage, or you can leave copies behind with someone you trust.
The bank said that the following tips can also ensure that your passport is secure when travelling:
•    Buy a good-quality passport holder to protect your passport from water damage and wear.
•    Store your passport in a concealed zippered pocket safe from pickpockets or in your hotel safe.
•    Whenever anyone asks you to produce your passport to be scanned or stamped, always check that the passport they return to you is indeed yours



South Africa’s Department of Home Affairs refiled long-awaited changes to its work permit regime to allow for the creation of a so-called nomad visa for remote workers.
The May 20 gazetting of the changes, which had been withdrawn last month after the department failed to observe a mandatory period for public comment, means that the changes are now law.
It’s also seeking to allow people employed and paid by companies elsewhere to live in the country as long as they earn at least R1 million ($55,404) annually. The visa comes with a short-term tax exemption.
The step, acting on recommendations made by the office of the president, comes amid criticism from some of the nation’s biggest foreign-owned employers over their inability to get technicians and executives into the country.
South Africa’s byzantine system means applicants can wait for more than a year to get a work permit even though a poor local education system has left companies without skilled workers.

Many migrant children, having been told they would be safe and things would be better in South Africa, are finding this to be far from the truth.
The Equal Education Law Centre is concerned about the impact that the final White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection will have on migrant and undocumented children’s rights - including the right to education.
On 10 April 2024, Cabinet approved the final White Paper on Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection. It was gazetted on 17 April. The document outlines sweeping plans for reform, including increased border monitoring, establishing immigration courts and withdrawing from international and regional human rights instruments.
The Equal Education Law Centre is concerned about the impact that this will have on migrant and undocumented children’s rights - including the right to education.
The white paper refers to the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. South Africa acceded to these instruments in 1996, without entering any reservations. But the Department of Home Affairs, at least according to the white paper, appears to have regrets about this.
The white paper states that “South Africa did not make any reservations in respect of the 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol”. The document’s explanatory memorandum goes on: “These reservations mainly deal with socio-economic rights such as access to health, education, social welfare, [the] right to work and trade and others. This was a fatal mistake on the part of the government.
“It is not surprising that South African courts developed jurisprudence regarding asylum and refugees which is unfavourable to the interests of government.”
What does the department hope to achieve?
It is not explicit from the white paper what the Department of Home Affairs believes withdrawing from the UN Convention and Protocol would achieve.
Does the department hope that withdrawing would stifle future litigation that could further expand the rights of migrants and undocumented persons?
Does the department intend to repeal and enact new legislation that would, without any international obligations binding it, remove existing rights from migrants?
Neither perceived goal could, in its entirety, be achieved by the department when taking into account South Africa’s rights-based legal framework.
Attempts to remove existing rights from migrants and undocumented persons, like the right to education, would fail. The right to education is already a firmly entrenched right for migrant and undocumented children.
In the Centre for Child Law and Others vs Minister of Home Affairs, it was stated that the right to education belongs to everyone, regardless of nationality.
On this basis, and on the basis of a circular issued by the Department of Education urging schools and districts to comply with the judgment, many undocumented children who were previously unable to access schools have been enjoying the right to education.
Any action to now remove the right to education for migrants or undocumented persons would be an impermissible regression of rights: Section 7(2) of the Constitution places an obligation on the State that requires it to refrain from any action that would infringe the rights in the Bill of Rights.
This includes the right to education - something that has been affirmed by the Constitutional Court.
In essence, the State is under an obligation not to interfere with, infringe upon or restrict the education rights of migrant, stateless and undocumented children.
Similarly, a desire to stifle future precedent on the right of migrants and undocumented learners to education would be futile. If this is the department’s intention, it is a stance that misunderstands the primary source of South Africa’s obligations to all persons within its territory - that source being the Constitution.
It was upon the fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution that South Africa acceded to the 1951 Convention, the 1967 Protocol and the OAU Convention. This means that the rights implicated in the white paper exist and are primarily enforceable through the Constitution before international law.
Courts may (and do) take into account international law when interpreting the Bill of Rights, but also rely directly on the Constitution itself. This is evident from the court’s decision in the Centre for Child Law matter which was based on a Constitutional Court judgment, the latter being a decision that was itself rooted primarily in the Constitution.
This is not to say that our Constitution renders our membership in the Convention and Protocol superfluous. Our membership is a signal to the international community that we remain committed to the fundamental human rights which define our democratic dispensation and also enhance our accountability by requiring South Africa’s compliance with the Convention and Protocol’s reporting mechanisms and international transparency.
Remaining a member of the Convention and Protocol is, therefore, an indication that we are capable of meeting the standards which we have set for ourselves as a nation.
Tactics ahead of elections
The white paper appears to suggest that South Africa does not have the resources to provide socio-economic rights to refugees, asylum seekers and other migrants. The implication is that asylum seekers are a drain on the fiscus.
However, the department has wholly failed to present evidence that the rights migrants hold have had any impact on government’s provision of socio-economic rights to South African people.
Evidence abounds, however, that migrants are frequently used for political capital - and often as scapegoats - by governments that fail to meet their service delivery obligations.
It would be regrettable for that perception to gain traction in South Africa.
It would also be in stark contrast to South Africa’s position in the international community as a champion of human rights.
As we continue to demonstrate our commitment to protecting and defending vulnerable and oppressed persons globally, this commitment must include the vulnerable persons who seek protection and refuge within our borders.

The Department of Home Affairs refiled long-awaited changes to its work-permit regime to allow for the creation of a so-called nomad visa for remote workers.

The 20 May gazetting of the changes, which had last month been withdrawn after the department failed to observe a mandatory period for public comment, means that the changes are now law.

It’s also seeking to allow people employed and paid by companies elsewhere to live in the country as long as they earn at least R1 million annually.

The step, acting on recommendations made by the office of the president, comes amid criticism from some of the nation’s biggest foreign-owned employers over their inability to get technicians and executives into the country.

South Africa’s byzantine system means applicants can wait for more than a year to get a work permit even though a poor local education system has left companies without skilled workers.