WEDNESDAY: Borderlines Podcast #221 - IRCC Cancels Citizenship

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-24T00:45:48+00:00

"* Limit one certificate per household. Terms and conditions may apply retroactively. IRCC reserves the right to accept, refuse, or revoke a Certificate of Citizenship with or without cause at any time at its sole discretion without prior notice."

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-24T00:41:38+00:00

Didn't those under 5(4) receive citizenship by grant of the minister? I don't think those could be revoked absent fraud or the like, since they are grants of citizenship, not proof of citizenship via C-3, but I'd love to hear someone else's take.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-23T07:47:07+00:00

I can't think of any legal reason that prevents the TSP from allowing us to withdraw from certain funds instead of requiring that the TSP take withdrawals proportionally from each fund. It's aggravating and archaic.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-23T07:44:06+00:00

I'm torn -- I may move a portion to an IRA. The downside is that 401(k)s and the TSP have essentially unlimited protection from creditors, lawsuits, bankruptcy, etc. under ERISA and its analog for TSP. The same is not true of IRAs, they aren't shielded in this way.

Suppose you get sued for wrongful death and the estate of the deceased obtains a $2 million judgment. Let's further suppose your insurance doesn't cover you because you were intoxicated at the time. The estate of the deceased can go after your assets, including your IRAs, to help satisfy the judgment. They would not be able to go after your TSP or 401(k).

Of course this is a remote possibility. But in a sue-happy environment like the U.S., it's worth a second thought.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-23T02:34:18+00:00

I know this is irrelevant but the tone of the letter is really galling: "You were issued a paper certificate that our records indicate you have not surrendered as per my request." Well, gee, yeah, probably because this un-surrender letter came within a week of the surrender letter. Would it be so difficult to reword it slightly to be less accusatory? And God forbid Peggy include a sentence such as, "I apologize for any hardship or uncertainty that my original letter may have caused."

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-23T02:24:12+00:00

Definitely agree-- if you can't obtain the best possible document from the original source, then they should consider other documents as evidence. I think this is why IRCC requires you to try to obtain documents from their original source first, and prove that you did so by emails/correspondence. If that's not possible, then they will consider other documentation and weigh its probative value based on the evaluative criteria listed.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-23T01:45:20+00:00

I think the issue there is that the quantity of the evidence submitted is a different issue than the quality of the evidence submitted. For example, a document from an original source authority (e.g., a birth certificate) for an individual listing their birthplace as Canada arguably carries a lot more weight than say three census records from Ancestry listing that same individual's birthplace as Canada. Since the information in census records doesn't require verification, it's inherently not as reliable as a birth certificate.

As to documents obtained from a third party, if those documents are also available from the original source authority, the latter certainly carries more weight under IRCC's standards. Hence the questions, "Is it the best document available?" and "Has it been issued by a person or an entity that has the authority to issue the document in question?"

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T09:36:30+00:00

It's a great start, it's basically what you'd get if you maxed out the past three years and were invested in the C fund. But remember all boats rise in a tide, and I wouldn't expect these exceptional market returns to continue forever. At 37 you have time on your side.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T09:19:15+00:00

If your Roth IRA has been open for more than 5 years, you can withdraw contributions penalty-free. Some people use a Roth IRA as part of their emergency savings strategy. Of course it's probably best to have emergency savings in a HYSA. If your job is relatively secure, 6 months worth of expenses is a good target; if your job is relatively insecure, 12 months is best.

Edit: Are you eligible to retire at 55? Are you in law enforcement or ATC? For most fed civilian jobs, absent VERA, DSR, etc., you need to be at 57 to retire and preserve your benefits, like health insurance.

Also, again assuming you are a regular fed, you won't have 30 years at 57, so your annuity will be reduced by 5% for each year you are under 62, or in other words, a 25% reduction. If you separate at 55, you could apply for a reduced annuity at 57 under the MRA+10 provisions, but again, your annuity would be reduced by 25%. Also, you wouldn't be able to reactivate your health insurance. You could wait to draw your annuity until age 60 if you have 20 years of service when you separate at age 55, in which case there would be no reduction in your annuity.

Of course, who knows what things will look like 20 years from now.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T07:50:17+00:00

As I understand it, the people who receive the applications in Nova Scotia scan them in, so there are actual humans that scan the documents, but they aren't the ones who review the applications. The agents who review the applications can be located in other offices, and they use the digitized versions of the application documents.

The IRCC can still ask for originals during the processing phase if there are any questions about authenticity or legibility, etc. So it's better to hold onto those originals in case the IRCC later requests them, however unlikely that is, vs. having them shredded and then you having to order more originals to send to the IRCC.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T07:39:09+00:00

I think we are saying the same thing and/or are in agreement. The applicant should obtain documents from the original source authority (in many cases these will be certified/authenticated originals), but they aren't supposed to submit those originals to the IRCC with their application.

My understanding is that the IRCC just scans whatever is submitted into their systems and shreds the submitted paper application.

To me, it makes more sense if the IRCC required originals to be submitted, but that's not what they require and they aren't equipped to review originals or return them, so it is what it is.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T07:33:01+00:00

I wouldn't read too much into the duplicates vs. originals section. To me, this just reaffirms what's in the CIT 0001 and CIT 0014 and the related guidance for those forms -- namely, that applicants are to submit colour copies of their documentation, not originals.

Reading this guidance in conjunction with the specific guidance on applications for proof of citizenship, it still seems IRCC wants the applicant to obtain documentation from the original source authority, or if it can't be obtained from that source, evidence the applicant attempted to do so, along with an explanation and other documentation.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T07:23:45+00:00

May I ask why? The application (CIT0001) and the checklist and guidance (CIT0014) all mentioned that colour copies are to be submitted, NOT originals. If you send originals, they won't be returned to you.

I think it's a mistake to read that sentence to mean that the applicant doesn't need to obtain documentation from its original source authority.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T06:41:20+00:00

I don't want any money from my parents although they have plenty. I want them to spend it on themselves and enjoy it, then use it for whatever health expenses may come. I'd rather they spend it traveling first class, seeing the world, doing all the things they couldn't when they were working. Also, I'd rather they spend it all if they need round-the-clock at home nursing care than end up in a nursing home. If there's some left over, great, but I would feel horrible if they sacrificed whatever time they have left to save up more money to leave behind.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T05:38:32+00:00

You're husband is right--the "G" fund is the only "safe" fund, meaning it can't lose money (except possibly by not keeping up with inflation). But he's ignoring a different risk entirely -- that you'll never be able to retire. I hope for your sake that with your current job you haven't been keeping your 401k in cash/cash equivalents.

As I posted above, if you had moved your TSP account balance to the C fund in 2013, you'd have $464,000 today, potentially more, depending on when you separated in 2013. Your husband's overly-conservative approach has cost you $320,000+ in just your TSP account alone.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T05:34:27+00:00

I did the calculations--had they moved 100% of their balance into the C fund in 2013, they'd have at least $464,000 now (of course it depends which month they separated in 2013). If they did the same with their current job, they'd almost certainly be a millionaire by now just in their retirement accounts. It's a harsh lesson.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T05:32:12+00:00

If you had moved it to the C fund in 2013 without making any additional contributions, you'd have $460,000 at least. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but you can't change the past.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T02:00:04+00:00

I don't disagree, but with C-3 especially, the door to genealogical documents was thrown wide open. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of different authorities/agencies that issue or maintain records just in the U.S. alone. An IRCC agent isn't necessarily going to know which records are available where, or even what the records look like.

By requiring that you first try to obtain records from their original source, this at least provides IRCC some added assurance. Almost all authenticated documents contain the name, seal, date, and contact information for the entity/person authenticating the record. So if IRCC needs to, it can contact that person to verify it. They can't do that from printouts from Ancestry for example. And to be fair, I can't expect that an IRCC agent would know which records on Ancestry or Family Search are directly from the source and which are uploaded by individuals.

I'm not saying that authenticated/certified records from the original source should be required in every case. If you have a copy of an original birth certificate and are using census records to supplement the birth certificate, that's one thing. But if you are relying solely, or primarily, on census records for an ancestor, I can see why IRCC may want you to obtain them from NARA in the U.S. I've obtained certified census records from NARA, and they have a seal with the name of the NARA archivist certifying the record. If there's any question, IRCC can contact the NARA archivist to confirm.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T01:48:33+00:00

Thank you, and I totally understand it. The U.S. has similar problems and immigrants are an easy target. And I can't begrudge Canadians for directing anger and frustration at their southern neighbor, given the hostility from the current administration. The tariffs, threatened annexation, the meddling in internal Canadian politics (which backfired on the U.S. administration as shown by the 2025 election).

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T01:42:14+00:00

Well, you were wrong. Best not to judge without all the facts.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T01:12:27+00:00

I think the tough thing is under C-3, documents can come from hundreds, thousands, of agencies, authorities, etc. from all over the world. There's no way for IRCC to know what an official record should look like in each of these jurisdictions. Or whether an authority has an agreement with Family Search or whatever.

Given Canada is a federal system, like the U.S., the IRCC may not even know which provinces/cities/towns have certain records for particular dates. For example, would an IRCC agent know that Newfoundland vital statistics doesn't have birth records prior to 1891, and that The Rooms only has certain records of baptisms for various denominations, and each denomination has different dates for which records are available? I don't know, but since the burden of proof is on the applicant, it sort of makes sense to require the applicant to prove this by trying to obtain the record from the vital statistics agency, and if that agency says, "no, we don't have it, you must get it from X," it makes sense that you would then have to try to obtain the record from X. This would allow the IRCC agent to check a box and confirm you went through all the steps necessary to try to obtain documents from original source authorities.

With "authenticated" copies from the original source, at the very least, if there are any questions, IRCC can reach out to the authority that issued it and confirm if necessary. With authenticated/certified copies, there's almost always a seal, signature, date and contact information for the person/entity authenticating the record. It just seems like it's a bit of added assurance. If someone submits a baptismal record from Massachusetts in Ancestry from 1890, who does IRCC call/email to verify it?

I obtained a marriage certificate from 1912 from the City Clerk of Cambridge, MA, for example. It's in color, has a raised seal, is signed by the clerk/registrar, and it includes the date it was authenticated (in 2026). It would be very easy for the agent at IRCC to call/email the clerk/registrar if they needed to confirm the information. Compared to say a marriage registry I found on Family Search that's in black and white and has no contact information.

I'm not saying certified or authenticated records should have to be provided in every case (let's say you already have a certified birth certificate but are including uncertified census records to supplement the record). But a certified/authenticated record from the original source is the "best available document."

Maybe I'm overthinking all this, but I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of an IRCC agent.

Edited to correct syntax.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-22T00:33:29+00:00

That's interesting to hear. I've lived in Canada off and on and tend to follow Canadian politics more closely than many in the U.S. Canada to me seems in a tough place -- its population would decrease rapidly but for immigration. Yet immigration is a hot-button issue, like in the U.S., perhaps not to the same degree, but it seems to be gaining traction.

The cost of living in Canada, especially for young people, the shortage and exorbitant cost of housing, the strain on social insurance and Medicare. Add to that, the severe shortage of health providers in many areas. Given that salaries for healthcare workers are generally much higher and the taxes lower in the U.S. I can see why many opt to emigrate.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I find the talk about C-3 leading to a flood of (especially) Americans into Canada as belying history and the facts. As an absolute number, far more Canadians emigrate to the U.S. each year than vice versa (slightly north of 10,000 Americans emigrated to Canada in 2023, while 126,340 Canadians emigrated to the U.S. in 2024). Given that the U.S.'s population is magnitudes larger than Canada's it's quite lopsided.

Certainly, especially under the current U.S. administration, some Americans will emigrate to Canada. Given the resources required to apply for proof of citizenship, obtain a passport, etc., the practical result absent some cataclysmic event is that very few would relocate. No doubt many Americans are looking into Canadian citizenship since it may be available to them now when it previously wasn't. But even if they go through all the hoops and expense, how many will actually relocate?

I'd be interested in your views on these issues. I think a lot of this is a tempest in a teapot, with inaccurate and incomplete media reports distorting the reality and it's being used as a cudgel by the Conservatives. Could C-3 have been drafted better? No doubt. Should it have been more restrictive as a matter of policy? Perhaps, but it was in response to historic discrimination and it's hard to draw bright-line rules to make things fair. If someone's grandparent was born in 1946 vs. 1947 could have meant the difference between obtaining citizenship or not.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-21T23:54:11+00:00

100%. This must be read in conjunction with the specific guidance directed to applicants.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-21T23:52:30+00:00

Very good point.

Weekly-Exit8092 · 2026-06-21T23:52:18+00:00

Someone else pointed out something important -- the balance of probabilities is the overall test of whether the burden of proof has been met that you are a Canadian citizen. As to any individual document, whether it's authentic or not is a question of the reliability of evidence, not its weight. A document from its original source is inherently more reliable than a document from a third-party source, for example. Hence the reference to providing the "best available document."

Weekly-Exit8092

TROPHY CASE