# Should you be born in a country for it to be your nationality?



## Deleted_171835 (Jun 23, 2010)

Do you think you should be born in Canada (or any other country) for it to be considered your nationality? Do note that I'm not going by the textbook definition of nationality.


----------



## anaxs (Jun 23, 2010)

yep, i agree


----------



## giratina16 (Jun 23, 2010)

I agree. If you're not born in that country then it's not where you ORIGINATE from. A piece of card can say you are a whatever citizen but you'll always be form somewhere else. (I wasn't aiming that at anyone in particular).


----------



## sputnix (Jun 23, 2010)

I really don't see the point of this but anyways I agree I'm canadain [even though the flag is amierican I screwed up when I registered and don't know how to change it 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





]


----------



## syko5150 (Jun 23, 2010)

No i don't however i think you need to earn the right to live somewhere and also need to be living there for a certain amount of time before you can claim that you're whatever country it is.I don't think you can move to a country get your citizenship and be like now I'm one of them after a short period of time. America is a good example here there's a lot of people from countries all around the world that now call themselves Americans there will always be people who accept them as Americans and those who don't. Either way its not really a big deal if someone wants to think of themselves as whatever


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Jun 23, 2010)

sputnix said:
			
		

> I really don't see the point of this but anyways I agree I'm canadain [even though the flag is amierican I screwed up when I registered and don't know how to change it
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Select 'My Controls' in the upper right corner and at the left, click 'Edit Profile Info'.


----------



## Danny600kill (Jun 23, 2010)

I think your nationality should never change, but I agree with citizenship. Even If i moved to another country, Canada for example and got my Citizenship If i was asked Id still say my nationality was British, but then add that I'm a Canadian Citizen


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jun 23, 2010)

I think not. 

If you're raised in a country, follow its rules and regulations, and its customs are your customs, than that should be your Nationality.


----------



## frogmyster3 (Jun 23, 2010)

Well my cousin was born in England but has spent most of his life (so far) in Ireland and recently moved back. While technically he is English as that is where he was born and where he currently resides as well as his dad being English, we still refer to him as Irish. Although that's because him mum is. So he's English and Irish.

But if someone was in another country while pregnant for an extended period, they could give birth in that country and then return home. So while that child will live and grow up in his parent's country of origin, if the question was instead a statement, then that child would have a different nationality from their friends and family despite possibly only ever being in that country once.

So my answer to the question is - it depends on the circumstances.


----------



## sfunk (Jun 23, 2010)

So in your opinion nationality changes within a generation? If your African friend has some kids are those kids are somehow inherently more Canadian then their father? I disagree. Being Canadian has a lot more to do with what you do and how you think then it has to do with birth. Nationality is clearly a nebulous/ill defnied concept considering all borders are political in nature thus identifying with a country based on birth location is non-sensical. What's more important is whether you are capable of identifying with the central tenets/ideologies that define your country. In Canada that would be ideas like the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the concept of the cultural mosaic. If you hold an honest belief in those things then that, to me, is far more important than where you were born. That being said I have no particular problems with our current citizenship requirements (3 years in the country, capable of speaking English or French and a test on the "rights and responsibilities of citizenship" and an "understanding of Canada’s history, values, institutions and symbols"). Source


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Jun 23, 2010)

sfunk said:
			
		

> That being said I have no particular problems with our current citizenship requirements (3 years in the country, capable of speaking English or French and a test on the "rights and responsibilities of citizenship" and an "understanding of Canada’s history, values, institutions and symbols"). Source


Marriages of convenience may not be allowed under Canada’s immigration law but are commonly done. Somebody marries this guy/women from another country. The guy/woman doesn't actually love them and just did it to get a Canadian citizenship.

Have you seen the W5 documentary? Sometimes, the language translator workers help them in this illegal process. That's the fault of Canada's enforcement of those workers. Internal goverment paper says that 25% of the applications are fraud. Canada's citizenship rules are too lenient. Citizen and Immigration Canada and Canada Border Services Agency don't bother investigating complants about this which is absurd since they should be deported for marriage fraud.


----------



## Overlord Nadrian (Jun 24, 2010)

danny600kill said:
			
		

> I think your nationality should never change, but I agree with citizenship. Even If i moved to another country, Canada for example and got my Citizenship If i was asked Id still say my nationality was British, but then add that I'm a Canadian Citizen


I fully agree with this. Nationality should always remain the same as when you were born, no matter where you are at any time. There is no point in calling yourself American when you were born in, let's say, India. People will always say "Oh, it's the Indian guy" (no jokes intended), so why not just go with the flow and call yourself Indian too? You ARE the one who was born in India, after all.


----------



## Magmorph (Jun 24, 2010)

SoulSnatcher said:
			
		

> sfunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why does it matter to you why people are getting married? Love is not something that can be proven.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Jun 24, 2010)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> SoulSnatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The other person considers themselves victimized by the person. The person intentionally abandons their so-called "spouse" to live a life alone already married to some other person in some other country.
This has to do with false "love". Misleading the person to get a Canadian citizenship. This is a punishable act by Canadian law yet it is rarely enforced.


----------



## DeltaBurnt (Jun 24, 2010)

Saying yes is like saying you have to love Nintendo if you started with a Gameboy.


----------



## _Chaz_ (Jun 24, 2010)

DeltaBurnt said:
			
		

> Saying yes is like saying you have to love Nintendo if you started with a Gameboy.


Wait, you mean that's not true?


----------



## sfunk (Jun 24, 2010)

SoulSnatcher said:
			
		

> sfunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I completely agree with you on this but problems with enforcement have little to do with the the requirements themselves. I think the requirements as they are fit the bill for what I would think a Canadian should be. What needs to change is the depth to which all applications are investigated. Fraudulent applications should be punished with criminal charges and deportation. Of course Canada is a big softie and so harsh punishment will never happen but that is what I would prefer, however; just because criminals can abuse a system, it doesn't mean that the system itself (immigration) is fundamentally broken. If a Canadian citizen is facilitating these scams then they too should be punished according to our criminal system but to reject legitimate immigrants from becoming citizens just because of fraudsters would be absurd. Out of curiousity, what requirements would you wish to change for potential Canadian citizens?

Edit: I had forgotten about the Refugee Protection Act. You are right on that one. It is broken. Deportation should always remain an option.

Edit2: 
"I fully agree with this. Nationality should always remain the same as when you were born, no matter where you are at any time. There is no point in calling yourself American when you were born in, let's say, India. People will always say "Oh, it's the Indian guy" (no jokes intended), so why not just go with the flow and call yourself Indian too? You ARE the one who was born in India, after all."

I can't say I agree but I do say where you are coming from. One should always acknowledge their past. Where you came from is part of who you are but in Canada the way we see things is that just because you have become a Canadian citizen it doesn't mean you have to dispense with your past. The idea of the  cultural mosaic encourages you to take the parts of your heritage with you and make that part of Canada; thus the defnition of a Canadian is everchanging. Of course one of the shortcomings of the mosaic is that it does tend to encourage the formation of entirely insular communities that don't interact outside of themselves...


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Jun 24, 2010)

sfunk said:
			
		

> SoulSnatcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I would change the 3 year requirement to a 5 year period just to make sure the person is dedicated. I know this may be unfeasible but I think that the Canadian government should evaluate all potential citizens and how they would benefit the economy and Canada's overall well-being instead of bringing any random guy.


----------



## sfunk (Jun 24, 2010)

SoulSnatcher said:
			
		

> sfunk said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No objections here on that count. When I was typing up my post I was thinking that too. In fact, I was under the impression, before I looked it up, that the requirement was 5 years but honestly, it doesn't make much of a difference. Someone trying to fake their way into the country could still do so regardless of that time limit. In the case you linked to he didn't even wait for 3 years to pass, he simply left as soon as he landed. Changing this to 5 wouldn't have prevented that case from happening.

As for qualified immigrants: I do believe that Canada does use the point system for legitimate immigrants and thus stringent requirements need to be met before they are allowed in to the country. The exception to this is apparently marriage and the claming of refugee status. If you claim refugee status they are a lot more lenient with the rules (assuming your claim passes). Many people choose to abuse this generosity in order to force their way into the country. Eventually they just apply for citizenship once they become permanent residents. This is another loophole that needs closing.

Here's the point system test: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/ski...ssess/index.asp

It gives you some insight into what Canada is looking for when it picks legitimate immigrants.


----------



## Jakob95 (Jun 24, 2010)

Lots of my cousins were not born in America but they came here when they were the age 2 or younger.  Does that mean they are Americans or not one of my cousins even came here when he was like 7 months?  I was born in America but whenever someone asked me where am I from or what I am I never say I am american.


----------



## Langin (Jun 25, 2010)

I need to agree....


----------



## Overman1977 (Jun 25, 2010)

The definition of the word 'nationality'....enough said.


----------



## popoffka (Jun 25, 2010)

I personally think that nationality should be something that you choose by yourself, and one of the main factors should IMHO be your native language.
For example, I was born and live in Latvia, however, I'm a native speaker of Russian and consider myself Russian.


----------



## Cyan (Jun 25, 2010)

No, I disagree.

There are a lot of ways to acquire the nationality of a specific State.
Each country have their own laws about that, but the first and I'm sure common one for every country is : You have the nationality of your parents, wherever you are born. 
(There are very few case where the child is without nationality (Statelessness), some country can "adopt" them when they enter the country by according them their nationality)

My birth place is Monaco, and yet I'm French because my parents are.
That doesn't give me the right to ask for the Monegasque nationality.


Now about Canada, imagine your parents where traveling while being pregnant, and you born by accident on another country, oh what a shame ! you can't come back to Canada because you are not proud of it, you are a foreigner and need a Visa ! your parents must leave you in the forest for the wolves because you are not a Canadian !

You see the point here ?



PS : I'm working with the French Civil States and know laws about French nationalities. I can tell you there are many ways to gain or acquire it.
And the laws changed a lot from the ancient time to now.
For example, during Wold War II, they prohibited the automatic nationality for an "enemy countries" woman who married a French man while the allied country where privileged.
Law are changing, you must look more globally instead of thinking only about the country borders and the rights it gives to be born on it.
Think also about colonization of other countries or islands, which become their own nation later, would the people must lose their Canadian nationality while they born on Canadian territory ?

It's just a very few example of the complexity it can be.



Maybe you talk about the way the people are acting and are or are note considered Canadian because of their origin and race.
but I would say like _Chaz_ :
If you're raised in a country, follow its rules and regulations, and its customs are your customs, than that should be your Nationality.

The real meaning of nationality is mutual agreement with people and the State. The state provide protection to the people, and the people agree to the state's laws and provide assistance (like doing the army, defending the country, voting, participating in political act, etc.)
So, nationality is more a feeling and a way you act than being born on a certain place.


----------



## George Dawes (Jun 26, 2010)

Your "nationality" is wherever you happen to live.

Don't like the regime/scenery/people in the country you are?  Move to somewhere you do like.  What does a country want more - a bunch of citizens who hate the place and want to leave or someone who has actively decided to become part of the country?

I agree with cyan, pointless thinking so small-minded;  think internationalist.


----------



## Rydian (Jun 26, 2010)

DeltaBurnt said:
			
		

> Saying yes is like saying you have to love Nintendo if you started with a Gameboy.I wasn't aware having a country as your nationality meant you loved it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yup, most people seem to forget they have a pair of legs on them.


----------



## TrolleyDave (Jun 26, 2010)

To me nationality will always be the country you were born in, except in case like what Cyan pointed out about children born in other countries while their parents are on holiday.  Their nationality should then be the country of residence of their parents as it's where they'll be brought up and it's the culture they'll adopt.  Citizenship is a different matter though.


----------



## rastsan (Jun 28, 2010)

I may be born canadian but I do not consider myself canadian.  I consider myself international.


----------



## naglaro00 (Jun 28, 2010)

I think there's a specific law for this...
on-topic:
no
should be on the parents' nationalities. yes its flawed i know


----------



## Michishige (Jun 30, 2010)

giratina16 said:
			
		

> I agree. If you're not born in that country then it's not where you ORIGINATE from. A piece of card can say you are a whatever citizen but you'll always be form somewhere else. (I wasn't aiming that at anyone in particular).




Technically, being born in a country doesn't exactly mean that you originate from that country. An example I often like to use is; if a dog is born in a stable, is it a dog or a horse?

If an African couple move to Canada and give birth to a baby, that baby still doesn't originate from Canada, the baby originates from his/her parents, which are African.

However, there is a problem with the definition in this example, how many generations would have to be born and raised in a country for their origins to be of that country and not another country?


In my opinion, it's not important where you 'originate' from, we're all human beings and we all live on earth (until I go to live on the moon).


----------



## Cyan (Jun 30, 2010)

Michishige said:
			
		

> However, there is a problem with the definition in this example, how many generations would have to be born and raised in a country for their origins to be of that country and not another country?


In France, it only needs 2 generations to be born in France to become French.
It's automatic, no personal administrative act needed to be done.

Though, if there is only 1 generation like you are born in France and your parents are both born outside of France, starting 13 years old you can ask for the French nationality by providing clues you lived/went to school at least 5 consecutive years in France.

I think France is a very easy country to acquire its nationality. There are a lot of possibilities. and yet, people are always crying that it's difficult, that we ask to many papers, administrative paper are hard to make, They don't like France ... but they are happy to be here, else they would go back in their country !
And you know what ? That's mainly French people which are crying, foreigners are happy and always give the good papers we asks.
French people think they should deserve to have anything without giving anything !


----------

