Gaucher: The U.S. narrowly upheld birthright citizenship. What about Canada?

2026/07/14 Leave a comment

Classic case of ideology driving the research. As always, race overshadows class in these critiques. And an IRCC/StatsCan study estimated that 70 percent of non-resident self-pay deliveries were visitor visas, not temporary workers or international students, the category most likely to be birth tourists:

…At the heart of these debates is reproductive racism — the systemic control or regulation of people’s pro-creative capacities based on their race. The political reasons for restricting citizenship policy are tied directly to anti-immigrant, racist and sexist sentiments that stigmatize migrant women’s reproduction….

Source: The U.S. narrowly upheld birthright citizenship. What about Canada?

Filed under Birth Tourism, Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

French: MAGA’s Birthright Meltdown Is in Full Effect

2026/07/13 Leave a comment

Good commentary:

…The people above — who range from a sometime trillionaire to billionaires to government officials to journalists and pundits — aren’t exceptional on the populist right. They’re emblematic of a movement that, like Trump, is constantly arguing that this country is minutes away from midnight and that only the most extreme measures can yank America back from the brink of destruction.

And to them, Exhibit A of the destruction of America is the birthright citizenship case, the ultimate symbol of national suicide.

But how could that be? The Supreme Court’s decision did nothing more than confirm a legal status quo that’s existed since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 — a ruling that’s rooted in centuries-old British and American conceptions of citizenship.

Part of the rage seems to be rooted in a sense that MAGA came oh so close to winning. Miller told Fox News’s Jesse Watters, “The fact that it was 5-4 — so agonizingly close — just underscored that the legal community on the right and left has been so wrong for so many years, saying this was going to be a 9-0 ruling against President Trump.”

But that’s not quite right. Yes, there were only five unqualified votes for the constitutional status quo, but there were six total votes for birthright citizenship (Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that birthright citizenship was required by statute, not the Constitution), and Justice Neil Gorsuch’s dissent indicated that he was mainly concerned with citizenship for the children of temporary visitors.

As Gorsuch wrote about the children of unauthorized immigrants, “What matters isn’t whether a child’s parents are citizens. What matters is whether they (and, by law, their child at birth) have made this place their home and are thus ‘domiciled within the United States.’” The strong implication was that Trump’s order denying citizenship to undocumented immigrants was far too broad.

Now, by this reckoning, we can count seven justices who would retain the status quo for the children of unauthorized immigrants, at least when those families wish to stay in the United States. Birthright citizenship — at least for those people whose families live in the United States — is far more secure than MAGA seems to believe. Or wants to believe…

That’s why we believe that any person born in the United States is a citizen. The creed has helped create and sustain a culture, and then both creed and culture tell us that each person in this country is of equal worth and equal status. If the creed isn’t central to our identity, then why does the oath of office bind the president to “preserve, protect and defend” a constitution, not a country?

The Declaration, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address — these are the proclamations that define who we are. They are the core of the American creed, and without that creed, America might retain its name, but it will not retain its nature.

Source: MAGA’s Birthright Meltdown Is in Full Effect

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

The [SCOTUS] Birthright Decision Was Surprisingly Close, Some Legal Scholars Say

2026/07/02 Leave a comment

Surprising, but perhaps not for this court:

On the final day of its term, the Supreme Court issued a majority opinion with a clear message: Birthright citizenship is a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.That decision on Tuesday, striking down President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, reaffirmed decades of legal thought and practice.

But some civil rights advocates, lawyers and legal scholars were surprised that four justices — Clarence Thomas, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — said that they did not see birthright citizenship as a constitutional right for certain groups.

(Justice Kavanaugh agreed with the majority’s decision to strike down Mr. Trump’s executive order, but based his reasoning on a federal statute rather than on the 14th Amendment.)

“This should have been a 9-0 decision,” said Bethany Li, executive director of the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which filed an amicus brief against the president’s order.

For more than a century, there was broad consensus among most legal scholars and the courts that the 14th Amendment extended citizenship not just to the children of formerly enslaved people, but also to nearly all babies born within the United States. It was only when Mr. Trump began running for office, in 2015, that a once-fringe academic theory — that the 14th Amendment was only about slavery, and did not cover the children of temporary visitors — started to gain political and legal traction.

The momentum culminated in Mr. Trump’s executive order on his first day back in office last year to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign residents.

“A year and a half ago, people said there was no support for this view, that it was ahistorical and atextual,” said Ilan Wurman, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Trump’s executive order. “So to get four votes for the Trump administration’s position here is quite a coup.”

To be sure, the ruling was ultimately a win for proponents of birthright citizenship….

Source: The Birthright Decision Was Surprisingly Close, Some Legal Scholars Say

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship, Trump administration

A ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Exception — From Canada: The pregnant Dutch crown princess and a quickie proclamation of ‘extraterritoriality’

2026/06/11 Leave a comment

Interesting:

“As the Supreme Court ponders the legality of restrictions President Trump is attempting to impose on “birthright citizenship” in the United States (expect a decision the day the justices leave town for the summer), one unique royal birth at an Ottawa hospital in the depths of World War II offers an exception to the jus soli laws in our neighbor to the north, which mirror our own. The question is whether it could be replicated in this country should the High Court not rule in the administration’s favor.

…Would It Work Here?

The question is whether a similar scheme could be replicated in this country to limit birthright citizenship to the newborn children of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents by declaring any place children are born of other parents as “extra-territorial”.

Legally, it’s a longshot, but keep in mind that: (1) when King George issued his proclamation, nobody knew where Princess Juliana would give birth, and thus extraterritoriality followed her wherever she went before giving birth; (2) that proclamation was issued and effective under the same common law principles the Court relied on in Wong; and (3) it is a precedent, albeit a unique and foreign one.

As for the first — and key — point, consider the following question from Justice Barrett during the oral argument in Trump v. Barbara, the pending birthright citizenship case, to the attorney opposing the president’s EO on the accepted principle that there’s an exception to U.S. birthright citizenship for the children of diplomats:

[I]f you look at the diplomatic exception almost like diplomats and their children have little bubbles around them, like the embassy is really the territory of that country, and even when they’re traveling around, they’re all not subject to the jurisdiction by virtue of this territorial fiction, are those just applications of the rule?

Princess Juliana wasn’t subject to a diplomatic exception (she was a refugee, not a diplomat), but the king’s proclamation created a “bubble” around the heir-apparent wherever she went up to the time of Princess Margriet’s birth in much the same way as the diplomatic bubble described by Justice Barrett applies.

Here, in part, is how counsel responded to the question: “So the thing that all of the exceptions have in common, again, is this sense that the — the person is — has this fiction of extraterritorial — extraterritoriality around them.

If the accepted exceptions to birthright citizenship (the former one for Indians, and the current ones for children of diplomats, and children born in zones of enemy occupation and on foreign ships) have a “fiction of extraterritoriality around them”, what impact would an actual presidential declaration of “extra-territoriality” have

To ask that question is to answer it, but it begs a second question: Can the president, acting on his own, declare parts of the United States to be “extraterritorial” for the brief moments that children of those who are not citizens or green card holders are born there?

Does a 1942 proclamation by the British monarch, issued to avoid a potential succession crisis in the Dutch royal house, offer a precedent an American president could follow to bar the children of aliens here illegally and/or temporarily from automatically receiving U.S. citizenship? It’s a question the White House may want to ask, assuming the Supreme Court gives him bad news on its way out of town.”

Source: The pregnant Dutch cown princess and a quickie proclamation of ‘extraterritoriality’

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Birthright Citizenship and Youth Crime

2026/04/17 2 Comments

Interesting German study. Likely transferable to other countries but would need to carry out similar analysis for the USA to assess their suggestion that same would apply:

This paper studies the impact of birthright citizenship on youth crime. We leverage a German reform which automatically granted birthright citizenship to eligible immigrant children born in Germany after January 1, 2000 and administrative crime data from three federal states. We find that immigrant youth who acquired citizenship at birth are substantially less likely to engage in criminal activity, with estimates indicating a 70% reduction in crime. These results are particularly relevant in light of ongoing debates in the U.S. about abolishing birthright citizenship. Our findings suggest that inclusive citizenship policies can reduce crime and its associated costs, which in turn could strengthen social cohesion.

Source: Birthright Citizenship and Youth Crime

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Karas: End unconditional birthright citizenship in Canada to curb abuses

2026/04/06 Leave a comment

Karas continues to argue, justifiably, against birth tourism.

While the legislative change in simple, implementation is more challenging given Canada’s federal system where birth registries and vital stats agencies are provincial responsibly. Former IRCC ministers Kenney and Alexander abandoned plans in 2012 given these difficulties and lack of provincial agreement: see my What the previous government learned about birth tourism:

…Ending “birthright by default” in Canada is not about closing the door to immigrants – it is about closing a loophole. A straightforward amendment to the Citizenship Act to require that at least one parent be a Canadian citizen or permanent resident for a child born in Canada to automatically obtain citizenship would dissuade birth tourism overnight. Genuine newcomers would still be welcome through our immigration channels, and children born in Canada could still acquire citizenship once a parent becomes a citizen or via a naturalization process. This reform would protect our social and health systems from unfair burdens and ensure that citizenship is reserved for those with a real stake in Canada. Notably, Canadians across the spectrum support such a change: in one poll, 64% of respondents agreed that birthright citizenship should be denied to babies born to tourists or short-term visitors.

Canada’s generosity should not be misused as a shortcut to a “dream passport.” Ending unconditional birthright citizenship is a prudent, necessary step to safeguard the value of Canadian nationality. It would shut down an entire boutique industry of “passport babies” that has thrived at our expense, particularly drawing in wealthy travel-from-abroad clients. It would affirm the principle that Canadian citizenship is earned through genuine connection – by blood, by upbringing, or by naturalization – not by accident of birth location. Dozens of other successful, welcoming countries have already made this change, striking a balance between openness and fairness. Canada can do the same. Closing this loophole would uphold the integrity of our immigration system, protect public resources, and underscore that being Canadian is a privilege to be gained through true attachment to this country, not purchased through birth tourism. It is about fairness: citizenship should be a deeper bond than just being born in the right place at the right time.

Source: OP-ED: End unconditional birthright citizenship in Canada to curb abuses

Filed under Birth Tourism, Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

Bouie: The Birthright Con

2026/04/02 Leave a comment

Appears from today’s hearings that SCOTUS is inclined to agree with Bouie’s assessment:

…It is not so much that revisionism is on its face outrageous, but that any alternative reading of the citizenship clause must strike at the heart of the rejection of Dred Scott. On this count, Trump and his defenders fail. Their vision of citizenship — which would plunge countless children into statelessness as a permanently subordinate class — would bring Dred Scott back from the dead. And it would do this in support of a political agenda that seeks nothing less than the reconstruction of race hierarchy and the rank domination of despised minorities.

The evidence in favor of the traditional view of the citizenship clause is overwhelming. To rule otherwise is to say, in essence, that two plus two equals five. Which is to say that if the Supreme Court decides in favor of Trump, it will have less to do with law or history than the political power of the president and his movement.

Trump v. Barbara, then, is a stark reminder that the struggle over constitutional meaning involves the entire nation. The revisionist case rests less on new evidence than it does on Trump’s claim to embody the nation and its desires. If he is ascendant, then the people must want a closed, cloistered society.

Source: The Birthright Con

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship, Trump administration Tagged with ,

‘Birth tourism’ organizer jailed over scheme to bring pregnant Chinese women to US

2026/02/06 Leave a comment

Not aware of any similar cases in Canada in terms of charges given that there is no such prohibition. However, Richmond had an active cottage industry of services to pregnant Chinese women and any google search indicates a number of lawyers and consultants who offer their services:

A California woman was sentenced Monday to more than three years in prison in a long-running case over a business that helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to deliver babies who automatically became American citizens.

US District Judge R. Gary Klausner gave Phoebe Dong a 41-month sentence and ordered her immediately taken into custody from his federal court in Los Angeles. Dong and her husband were convicted in September of conspiracy and money laundering through their company, USA Happy Baby.

The sentencing came as birthright citizenship has been thrust into the spotlight in the US with the return of President Donald Trump to the White House. Since taking office, Trump issued an executive order to narrow the definition of birthright citizenship, a move quickly blocked by a federal judge who called it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

Dong and her husband, Michael Liu, were among more than a dozen people charged in an Obama-era crackdown on so-called “birth tourism” schemes that helped Chinese women hide their pregnancies while traveling to the US to give birth. Such businesses have long operated in various states catering to people from China, Russia, Nigeria and elsewhere.

Under the 14th Amendment, any child born in the United States is an American citizen. Many have seen these trips as a way to help their children secure a US college education and a better future – especially since the tourists themselves can apply for permanent residency once the children turn 21.

During her sentencing hearing, Dong wiped away tears as she recalled growing up without siblings due to China’s strict “one-child ” policy and told the court that the Chinese government forced her mother to have an abortion. Moving to the US was challenging, she said, but Dong grew hopeful after having children of her own and saw she could help Chinese women who want to have additional children in California.

“I don’t want to lose my kids,” she told the court. “I hope you can give me fair judgment. I will take all my responsibility.”

Federal prosecutors sought a more than five-year sentence for Dong and argued that she and Liu helped more than 100 pregnant Chinese women travel to the US. They said the pair worked with others to coach women on how to trick customs officials by flying into airports believed to be more lax while wearing loose-fitting clothing to hide their pregnancies.

“For tens of thousands of dollars each, defendant helped her numerous customers deceive US authorities and buy US citizenship for their children,” prosecutors said in court filings. They declined to comment after the sentencing.

In December, Liu was also sentenced to 41 months in prison. Dong’s lawyer, John McNicholas, asked that she be allowed to serve her term after Liu completes his sentence because of their three children. The youngest is 13.

Federal prosecutor Kevin Fu agreed to the delay but Klausner refused and had her taken into custody immediately. Dong removed a necklace and gave it to a family member before she was led away.

The USA Happy Baby case was part of a broader probe into businesses that helped Chinese women travel to give birth in California. The operator of another business is believed to have fled to China, McNicholas wrote in court filings, while another was sentenced in 2019 to 10 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy and visa fraud for running the company known as “You Win USA.”

McNicholas said he feels Dong was given a much longer sentence because the government and Klausner blame her for the babies that were born US citizens. That, he said, is unrelated to the allegations that she and Liu helped women travel to the United States to give birth.

“Our position was these children are born in America. They’re citizens,” McNicholas said, adding that Dong will appeal. “Implicitly, he’s saying being born here is not enough.”

Source: ‘Birth tourism’ organizer jailed over scheme to bring pregnant Chinese women to US

Filed under Birth Tourism, Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

A Conspicuous Gap May Undermine Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Plan

2025/12/23 2 Comments

Interesting argument:

In asking the Supreme Court to let him do away with birthright citizenship, President Trump has urged the justices to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment.

What the amendment meant when it was ratified in 1868, Mr. Trump’s lawyers said in a brief, was that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth.”

The court will hear arguments in the spring to decide whether that is right. There are many tools for assessing the original meaning of a constitutional provision, including the congressional and public debates that surrounded its adoption.

But one important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified.

A new study to be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online fills that gap. It examined the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871 and found good reason to think that more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Mr. Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. But no one thought to file a challenge to their qualifications.

That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story.

The study raises new questions about Mr. Trump’s legal battle to narrow protections under the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

The Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine. It adds that each House “shall be the judge” of its members’ qualifications.

“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Professor Frost said, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”…

Source: A Conspicuous Gap May Undermine Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Plan

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship, Trump administration Tagged with ,

Hospital birth data suggests increase in birth tourism, says immigration expert

2025/12/19 2 Comments

Globe coverage of my policy options article:

Births in Canada to foreign visitors and other non-residents have risen in the past year, an expert in immigration statistics has found after analyzing hospital data. 

The research, published in a report on Wednesday, shows a small increase in births at Canadian hospitals to temporary residents, such as international students and people here on work permits.

The proportion of births to people who are not settled in Canada is small compared with births in the country overall, but the number of temporary residents in Canada has been dropping as the federal government has reduced immigration.

According to the report, authored by Andrew Griffith, a former director-general at the federal immigration department, the data suggest an uptick in births to women here on visitor visas, otherwise known as birth tourism. …

Source: Hospital birth data suggests increase in birth tourism, says immigration expert, Policy Options Birthright citizenship and the politics of “birth tourism”

Filed under Birth Tourism, Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

← Older posts