Category Archives: citizenship by descent

Canadian Citizenship By Descent – A Search For Proof (To Prove The Truth) – 4 Perspectives

John Richardson, J.D. – August 13, 2026

Introduction

This is the second post in a series of posts designed to explore Canadian citizenship generally and Canada’s citizenship by descent rules specifically. The first post (which I suggest you read first) explained how Canada’s citizenship by descent rules work. If you haven’t read it, I suggest that you read it now.

Understanding The Citizenship By Descent Provisions Of Bill C-3 – The Canada Citizenship Act

For those who prefer a visual blueprint to determine whether you ARE a Canadian citizen see:

Bill_C3_Citizenship_Blueprint

This post is organized in the following parts:

Part A – The difference between knowing what to do and doing what you know!

Part B – Proving your parent was a Canadian citizen

Part C – Proving 1095 days of physical presence

Let’s begin.

Continue reading

Understanding The Citizenship By Descent Provisions Of Bill C-3 – The Canada Citizenship Act

By John Richardson, J.D. – Toronto, Canada – August 9, 2026

I have organized this post into the following Parts:

Introduction – Explaining the purpose

Part A – Canada’s citizenship by descent law from December 15, 2025 – What the law says

Part B – Understanding the language of Bill C-3 Canada’s citizenship by descent rules

Part C – Parsing the language of Bill C-3: How the legislation compels these conclusions

Part D – A Review: What is the legislative source of these conclusions? How does one get there? – The Text of relevant parts of Bill C-3

Part E – In Summary

Appendix A – Canada Citizenship Act

Appendix B – Canada Justice Minister – Explanation of Bill C-3

Appendix C – Bill C-3 Backgrounder

Appendix D – How To Apply For A Certificate Of Canadian Citizenship

Appendix E – Legislative Summary Of Bill C-3

Appendix F – The Complete Text Of Section 3 Of the Canada Citzenship Act

Introduction – Explaining the purpose

The purpose of this post is narrow. It is to explain how the new “citizenship by descent rules” follow from the text of Section 3(1) of The Canada Citizenship Act.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-29/page-1.html#docCont

Bill C-3 – Canada’s new citizenship law – Effective December 15, 2025

I am going to be honest. I find it very difficult to read the Canada Citizenship Act and make sense of it. I understand what the commentators say that it says. That’s great. But I feel more comfortable if I can understand the legislation, parse the legislation and understand how the sections fit together.

Bottom line: If somebody asks you:

Q. Where in the Canada Citizenship Act does it specifically say that, if a child is born outside of Canada, after December 14, 2025, to a parent who was a Canadian citizen and that Canadian citizen parent was also born outside of Canada, then that parent is required to have 1095 days of physical presence in Canada prior to the child’s birth in order to transmit citizenship to the child?

A. Well, you better be able to provide an answer.

Continue reading

Part 1: Colorado Congressman Jeff Hurd Recognizes Problems Of U.S. Citizenship Taxation

Part A – Introducing H.R. 4501

H.R.4501 – To protect the citizenship of, and provide tax-exempt status to, any American elected as the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4501

Here is the text of the bill. It’s amazingly clear. It’s amazingly honest. It states that Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code will not apply to Pope Leo. It is certainly one of the most honest and clear carve outs I have ever seen. (Interestingly it would NOT exempt Pope Leo from subtitle F which contains the international information return reporting requirements.)

BILLS-119hr4501ih

Let’s break H.R.4501 down:

H.R.4501 – To protect the citizenship of, and provide tax-exempt status to, any American elected as the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

H.R.4501 – To 1. protect the citizenship of (U.S. citizens abroad are being forced to renounce U.S. citizenship because of citizenship taxation) , and 2. provide tax-exempt status to (end U.S. citizenship tax jurisdiction over), any 3. American (U.S. citizen and possibly resident) 4. elected as the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church (appears to condition the benefit based on religion – 14th Amendment issue?).

At present there is no more information on the government site.

Part B – The tax exemption directly implicates the issue of citizenship taxation

The Internal Revenue Code (see section 1) clearly states that U.S. citizens are subject to taxation on their worldwide income. Therefore, for Pope Leo to NOT be considered a U.S. tax resident either:

1. The Internal Revenue Code would require some kind of amendment. The amendment might be a move to “residence-based taxation” or a special carve out for Pope Leo. (An example of a special carve out might be: “Individual” does not include a U.S. citizen Pope”); or

2. It could be incorporated into “A Simple Regulatory Fix For Citizenship Taxation“.

The point is that NO MATTER how this would be achieved it WILL require a rethinking of “citizenship taxation”. It will also require ensuring (if this is even possible that the amendment meet constitutional standards).

Part C – The statement of Congressman Hurd

H.R.4501 was introduced by Congressman Jeff Hurd from Colorado. The wikipedia article describes Hurd as being Catholic (presumably explaining his interest in this issue).

Interestingly, Congressman Hurd’s wife (by her own admission) was born in Czechoslovakia and may be a Czech citizen. If so, this might mean that Congressman Hurd’s five children are (by birth or naturalization) dual U.S./Czech citizens.

Further commentary about the possibility of U.S./Slovokia dual citizenship is here and here.

A press release describing H.R.4501 on his site states:

Rep. Hurd Introduces Holy Sovereignty Protection Act to Safeguard Citizenship for American Popes

July 18, 2025
Press Release

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Congressman Jeff Hurd (CO-03) introduced the Holy Sovereignty Protection Act (H.R. 4501), legislation to protect the U.S. citizenship of any American elected to serve as the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church. The bill prohibits the revocation of citizenship during a papal tenure and exempts the individual from U.S. tax obligations while serving as pope, recognizing his unique role as both a religious leader and head of state.

“The election of Pope Leo XIV marks a historic moment not only for the Catholic Church but for America,” said Rep. Hurd. “This legislation ensures that any American who answers the call to lead more than a billion Catholics worldwide can do so without risking his citizenship or facing unnecessary tax burdens. This legislation recognizes the extraordinary nature of the papacy—a role at the intersection of faith, leadership, and global responsibility.”

Significantly, the press release acknowledges Congressman Hurd’s belief and understanding that:

– certain activities can trigger the involuntary relinquishment of U.S. citizenship (not the case since the 1967 decision in Afroyim v. Rusk); and

– the problematic nature of U.S. citizenship taxation (specifically the imposition of U.S. worldwide taxation on U.S. citizens living outside the United States).

Part D – Why H.R.4501 is helpful to Americans abroad and the fight for residence-based taxation

The introduction of H.R. 4501 is a clear recognition that citizenship-based taxation presents unnecessary problems (and burdens) for Americans abroad. Although Congressman Hurd does NOT suggest that Americans abroad are renouncing their citizenship because of the U.S. extra-territorial regime, the quest to “Save The Pope” is a clear recognition of the problems caused by the exiting regime.

Given that H.R.4501 appears to provide a benefit based solely on affiliation with a specific religion, I suspect that it is dead on arrival. That said, it can (and should) be used to raise the question of why ANY U.S. citizen living outside the United States should be subject to the U.S. worldwide/extra-territorial taxation regime.

Specifically, H.R.4501 is support for both President Trump’s pledge to end the double taxation of Americans abroad and the LaHood bill which was introduced in December of 2018. I suggest that it be interpreted in this spirit.

Part E – What Americans abroad and their champions should do

This is simple. As a Catholic Congressman Hurd has an interest in maintaining the viability of a U.S. citizen Pope. As a father Congressman Hurd has an interesting in enhancing the life opportunities of his children to ensure that their life opportunities are not dampened by U.S. citizenship taxation.

I would reach out to Congressman Hurd and enlist his aid in supporting the ending of the double taxation of Americans abroad!

John Richardson – Follow me on X.com @ExpatriationLaw

Appendix

Here is a July 30, 2025 “X Spaces” discussion about the Hurd bill:

Part 4 – Canada Bill – C71 Will Increase Citizenship By Descent Options For US Citizens Seeking Canada/US Dual Citizenship

Introduction And Summary

This is Part 4 in my “Little Red Dual Citizenship Book” Series. For parts 1 to 5, see the Appendix.

A recent article in the Boston Globe is evidence that more and more Americans are interested in acquiring a second citizenship. Second citizenship can be obtained through naturalization, investment or citizenship by descent. “Citizenship by descent” is citizenship conferred based on one’s relationship – ancestry – to a parent or grandparent. The nature of the ancestral relationship depends on the country. Countries offering citizenship by descent include: Italy, Ireland, Poland, Canada and many other European countries. Citizenship by ancestry is often referred to as “citizenship by descent”. The basic principle is that one acquires citizenship because of a familial relationship to a citizen of that country. Increasing numbers of people are learning that through ancestry, they may be able acquire or document a second citizenship.

An option for “citizenship by descent” that is much closer to home – Canada – will soon be an option for more U.S. citizens than it is under exiting law.

Citizenship By Descent – Equal Treatment And Opportunity For All Canadian Citizens

The precise rules governing citizenship by descent vary from country to country. The rules governing citizenship by descent have many difficulties. Should ANY citizen be able to pass his/her citizenship on to the next generation? Does the physical connection to the country of citizenship matter? Should citizenship by descent rules operate so that acquisition of descent can be available for many generations? These questions were explored in the context of Canada’s Charter of Rights And Freedoms.

Continue reading

Expanding eligibility for Canadian citizenship: Bill C-71 opens up a possible never-ending chain of citizenship

Bill C-71 opens up a possible never-ending chain of citizenship

Bill C-71 sets out to allow Canadians to pass on their citizenship to any of their children born abroad past the first generation and expands “Lost Canadians” to cover a much larger number than before.

It is fraught with potential unintended consequences.

The bill is in response to a ruling by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2023, which declared previous limitations for citizenship transmission unconstitutional. Essentially, the court objected to a limitation inherent in previous citizenship laws that prevented Canadian citizens born outside Canada from passing on citizenship to a child also born abroad, or for an adopted child born outside Canada.

To remedy the issue, Bill C-71 uses residency as the “substantial connection test.”

However, the new standard in Bill C-71, which requires a foreign-born Canadian parent to have spent a total of 1,095 days in Canada prior to the birth or adoption, differs significantly from what is required of new Canadians.

Specifically, while in both cases the parent must have spent 1,095 days (the equivalent of three years) in Canada, new Canadians must have done so within a five-year time limit.

Bill C-71 places no such time limit to accumulate 1,095 days of residency in Canada for foreign-born Canadian citizens in the same circumstance.

This lack of a timeframe for meeting the critical requirement for passing on citizenship to descendants suggests the government has failed to fully consider the implications of such an open-ended condition.

The number of people potentially affected is significant.

There are an estimated four million Canadians living outside Canada. About half of them were born abroad.

As of 2017, two-thirds of them lived in the U.S., with another 15 per cent in the U.K., Australia, France and Italy – the total living in all other countries has unsurprisingly risen from 14 per cent in 1990 to 20 per cent in 2017.

This trend is significant in the context of Bill C-71: for second- and subsequent-generation expatriates in the U.S., EU and other politically stable places, seeking Canadian citizenship may not be a priority. It is likely a higher priority for those in other countries with less secure conditions.

Fueling the issue triggered by Bill C-71, expatriates as a whole are older than Canadians living in Canada – 45.3 years old compared to 41.7. Citizens by descent are much younger, at an average age of 31.7.

Without an established timeframe, it will be challenging or impossible for the federal government to accurately predict citizenship acquisition year over year.

Same rights, divergent pathways

Consider these scenarios:

My grandson was born in Europe. He cannot pass down Canadian citizenship to any future child. Under C-71, he would have that right, but only after first spending 1,095 cumulative days in Canada. One strategy would be to attend a Canadian university and accumulate most or all of the 1,095 days while getting a degree.

Consider a Canadian born abroad who maintains a cottage in Canada and spends summers there. Spending eight weeks a year in Canada, it would take nearly 20 years to acquire the right to give their descendants Canadian citizenship.

For second-generation Canadians who spend most of their life abroad, the road is even longer. Perhaps they make occasional trips to Canada, accumulating days to meet the 1,095-day requirement. But they would not likely meet the threshold unless they choose to return permanently in retirement.

Many descendants who are temporary residents either through a job transfer or as spouses of skilled workers or students would likely meet the physical-presence requirement. Temporary foreign workers on seasonal or short-terms contracts, on the other hand, would likely not meet the requirement.

The first two scenarios are manageable given that the physical-presence requirement for most would be met within a defined time period. In the latter situations, it is impossible to forecast if or when descendant citizenship rights would eventually be required.

Questions persist as Ottawa prepares Citizenship Act amendments

Birth tourism is rising again post-pandemic

Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) needs to determine and share estimates for the approximate number of new citizens expected under the change, along with the incremental workload and resources that are required before the bill goes before committee.

Media in India are characterizing Bill C-71 as legislation that “will open up the chain of citizenship without end as long as the parents have spent at least 1,095 cumulative days.”

Arguably, this change moves Canada closer to a hybrid jus sanguinis/jus soli regime, as it will make it possible for families to maintain intergenerational Canadian citizenship through different scenarios, which currently is not possible.

It may also provide opportunities for longer-term sophisticated foreign-interference efforts by countries like China and India by exploiting descendants who can acquire Canadian citizenship in their recruitment strategies.

Another question that remains unanswered is how many “Lost Canadians” want to be found. As seen in previous efforts to respond to public pressures, the actual number of those who request citizenship proofs is relatively small, at an average of just 1,500 per year between 2009 and 2022. (Similarly, the low number of expatriates who register and vote is another indicator that interest may be limited.)

However, the potential impact of Bil C-71 could be potentially large. So, before the government enshrines a new pathway to citizenship for some, all of the facts need to be properly considered.

Canadian citizenship is a precious gift. At the committee stage, members of Parliament must be able to fulsomely examine the implications of an open-ended residency requirement and consider establishing a specific time frame of five or 10 years.

This article authored by Andrew Griffith first appeared on Policy Options and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Citizenship Matters With @RonanMaCrea Part 2: The Nature Of Citizenship In A Global World

Introduction

This is a continuation of my discussion with Ronan McCrea on “citizenship matters”. My first discussion with Ronan McCrea focused on issues surrounding “citizenship by descent”. This second podcast focuses on the nature of citizenship.

The questions included:

What does citizenship mean?

What are the rights of citizenship?

What are the obligations of citizenship?

What are the different ways of acquiring citizenship?

What obligations to citizens living abroad have to their fellow citizens living at home?

Continue reading

Part 2 – Citizenship Matters With @RonanMcCrea: Citizenship By Descent Can Be High Risk For A Country In A Less Global World

Prologue – Citizens Abroad, The Right To Return And A Possible Right To Vote

This is Part 2 in my “Little Red Dual Citizenship Book” Series. For parts 1 to 5, see the Appendix.

In 1987, This Toronto Star article referenced in the above tweet may be read in its entirety as follows:

Page 1

out

Page 2

H5

The Toronto Star identifies some of the problems associated with citizenship policies that are overly generous. Interestingly (see the Appendix) in 2009 Canada attempted to address these problems through amendments to the Citizenship Act.

The 1987 Toronto Star article is very similar to a 2020 article written by Professor Ronan McCrae where he argues that (among other things) that citizens abroad should not have the right to vote.

Continue reading

Could The 2015 Obama budget proposal for "dual citizens" have been implemented without Congressional approval?

Note: This post was originally written in 2015. Parts of this post have been updated in January of 2021. (The original post is here.) The changes reflect the evolution of my thinking. I now believe that Treasury could (or could have) accomplished much of this proposal through Treasury regulations.

Part 1 – The Obama 2015 Budget Proposal – Change you can believe in?

This was the subject of significant discussion at the Isaac Brock Society. It was also the subject of an insightful blog post by U.S. Tax Lawyer Virginia La Torre Jeker.

It is possible that (at long last) the U.S. government is beginning to recognize that there is a difference between “technical citizenship” and a voluntary U.S. connection indicative of “substantive citizenship” that might (but is not required to) justify taxation of U.S. citizens abroad in the 21st century.

The relevant provision (page 282) includes:

Continue reading

Americans abroad and the compliance dilemma: What should be considered before contacting a lawyer

The “Readers Digest Version …

It’s difficult to be a U.S. citizen living outside the United States. The U.S. extra-territorial tax regime has created an industry of professionals who “feast off the injustice” of the U.S. tax and regulatory regime. U.S. citizenship taxation reinforced by FATCA has truly created for tax, financial planning, and immmigration professionals:

“The gift that just keeps on giving.”

The messaging to Americans abroad includes:

Americans abroad who don’t file U.S. taxes are constantly warned of the consequences of non-compliance.

Americans abroad who DO file U.S. taxes are constantly warned of the consequences of mistakes in their attempts at compliance.

Americans abroad attempting financial and retirement planning outside the United States are constantly on the search for financial products that wont’ conflict with U.S. tax rules.

Americans abroad who want to escape by renouncing U.S. citizenship are constantly being warned of possible tax and immigration consequences associated with renunciation.

(It’s clear that U.S. citizens living outside the United States are being punished for who they are and NOT what they do or don’t do.)

In this context, there continues to be a significant “fear mongering” coming from various players in the U.S. tax compliance industry. I suggest that Americans abroad should exercise caution in how they respond to these messages. In 2013 I wrote a post suggesting eleven principles for how one should respond to the U.S. tax compliance (or noncompliance) problem. This 2023 post is intended to provide an update to the 2013 post. The 2013 post is reproduced as Part C of this update.

This general purpose is to provide suggestions for how to RESPOND rather than REACT to your possible situation as a U.S. citizen living outside the United Staes. My thoughts are organized in the following four parts:

Continue reading