Inside the shadowy world of birth tourism at US ‘maternity hotels’

2015/03/07 Leave a comment

More on birth tourism, US perspective. Still relatively light on the numbers (Canadian numbers are very small – see earlier post What happened to Kenney’s cracking down on birth tourism? Feds couldn’t do it alone | hilltimes.com):

Birth tourism companies have flourished in recent years, according to federal officials — and many of them prefer hard-to-track cash to fuel their operations.

That money, federal officials allege, is being pocketed by a group of individuals who have skirted tax law, flouted immigration laws and helped their clients defraud U.S. hospitals of tens of thousands of dollars for each baby born.

On Tuesday, federal agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the IRS, along with the Los Angeles Police Department, conducted a massive operation to raid more than 30 California locations operated by “birth tourism businesses.” Officials collected piles of evidence that will likely be used against some of the “maternity hotel” operators in future prosecutions.

The companies advertise their services online — and no foreign language skills are necessary to guess the subtext.

…According to court documents, birth tourists were told to avoid traveling directly to Los Angeles International Airport from overseas, to avoid raising suspicion. They might even consider studying U.S. culture and booking recreational visits in order to make their travel seem more legitimate, the company advised. Alternate arrival ports such as Hawaii or Las Vegas were preferable.

You Win paid more than $60,000 a year to rent Southern California apartments that housed the women, according to court documents. Federal officials believe that StarBabyCare operated a “maternity hotel” from at least 10 units at one complex.

via Inside the shadowy world of birth tourism at ‘maternity hotels’ – The Washington Post.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship Tagged with , ,

The birthright citizenship debate – LA Times Editorial

2014/10/28 Leave a comment

LA Times editorial in support of birthright citizenship.

No numbers or estimates, however, on how many cases of “birth tourism,” although USA has greater concerns over illegal immigrants living in the USA, rather than the “birth tourists:”

Birthright citizenship is an emblem of equality and inclusion. Many other countries confer citizenship on the basis of bloodlines, what the law calls jus sanguinis. That makes sense when nationality is conceived of primarily in terms of ancestry or tribe or race or ethnicity.

But in America, a nation of immigrants, citizenship is defined differently. That principle was established when the 14th Amendment was adopted, and it should not be tinkered with today in an effort to keep out unwanted immigrants. Indeed, the decision to grant citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil was made in part so that members of particular minority groups would not be required to win the favor of the majority to claim the privileges of American citizenship.

Birthright citizenship provides a clear standard that sweeps away questions about whether someone has the proper ethnicity or antecedents to be an American. There are too many examples in history of people being victimized because of who their parents were. There is no good reason to add to them.

The birthright citizenship debate – LA Times.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

‘Birth tourism’ crackdown gets frosty reception from B.C.

2014/09/17 Leave a comment

More on birth tourism and appears British Columbia, while softer in tone, shares Ontario’s concerns.

Minister Alexander is reverting to a more hardline script than his messaging in the February announcement of changes to the Citizenship Act and his comments to Chinese Canadian media about it “not being a priority:”

But federal Immigration Minister Chris Alexander said Monday that Ottawa is forging ahead.

“This is opportunism. It is people taking advantage of our system,” Alexander said.

“We will find a way to try to prevent it.”

B.C. Jobs Minister Shirley Bond told The Vancouver Sun in an email that her office has written to the federal government seeking greater “clarity” about the proposal, which was first floated in 2012 by former Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

The B.C. letter was intended to “express concern about any financial and administrative costs that may result from this policy shift,” according to Bond, who added that she expects Ottawa to provide “adequate notice” of any changes.

The federal government is concerned about the phenomenon that has resulted in maternity clinics in Toronto and Vancouver telling Chinese nationals that birth in Canada could make the child eligible for Canadian education and heath care.

‘Birth tourism’ crackdown gets frosty reception from B.C..

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

What happened to Kenney’s cracking down on birth tourism? Feds couldn’t do it alone | hilltimes.com

2014/09/09 3 Comments

From my piece in the Hill Times (pay wall) on birth tourism or “anchor babies:”

But it is clear, that allegations of abuse play to the value Canadians attach to fairness, and fits into the overall government message and politics of cracking down on fraud.

But the evidence we have is clear: there is no business case to inconvenience millions of Canadians, for whom a birth certificate may no longer be sufficient identification, and cost taxpayers significant amounts to address a tiny problem.

Alexander’s spokesperson recently stated, refreshingly, that decisions will be “informed by facts,” rather than anecdotes.

What general lessons can we draw from this?

First, anecdotes drive identification of policy issues.

Second, rhetoric runs ahead of evidence.

Third, the provinces provided the most effective brake on anecdote-driven policy given that any workable response required their cooperation. Contrast this to the Citizenship Act changes, where the government had no need to be flexible.

Fourth, funding implications and provincial constraints ensured evidence trumped anecdote.

What happened to Kenney’s cracking down on birth tourism? Feds couldn’t do it alone | hilltimes.com.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Ontario says No to removing citizenship by birth on soil | Toronto Star

2014/09/02 Leave a comment

Expect that Ontario, which accounts for 37 percent of all births in Canada, essentially killed federal plans when it formally notified CIC in September 2012 of its opposition:

“In our view, there is not enough evidence to justify the effort and expense required for such a system-wide program change. Citizenship and immigration Canada has not quantified the extent of fraud resulting from ‘birth tourism,’’ said Ontario Deputy Immigration Minister Chisanga Puta-Chekwe.

“At this time, there is insufficient data to demonstrate the demand placed on Ontario’s economy or public services from ‘birth tourists,’” he wrote in a letter to Ottawa, dated September 6, 2012, after a technical briefing on the plan. A copy of the province’s response was obtained by the Star this week.

On Friday, a spokesperson for Ontario Immigration Minister Michael Chan said the province has not changed its position.“While citizenship is the sole responsibility of the federal government under Canada’s constitution, any proposed change to citizenship policy can have profound impact on the provinces and territories,” said the spokesperson.

“Adequate time needs to be taken to understand the full implications of any change in policy. Canada needs to get this right, in partnership with provinces and territories.”

Ontario says No to removing citizenship by birth on soil | Toronto Star.

Direct link to the DM letter here, along with some other related Ontario documents:

ON – Letter from ON DM Citizenship and Immigration to CIC DM 6 Sep 2012

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Blood, soil, birth tourism and anchor babies – Globe Editorial

2014/08/27 Leave a comment

The Globe’s editorial take on birth tourism – evidence-based policy, which Minister Alexander appears committed to, given his and his spokesperson’s recent comments stating that decisions “will be informed by facts” (in contrast to earlier anecdotes dramatizing the issue):

At present, however, birth certificates are the most common proof of Canadian citizenship. They do not include any information about a newborn baby’s parents’ citizenship.

Hospitals are a provincial jurisdiction. That is one of the reasons why the provinces and territories have been in charge of birth certificates for a long time. The subnational governments of Canada would doubtless not be eager to spend a huge amount of money to overhaul their birth-certificate system – let alone unanimously.

Ottawa could choose to foot the bill. But if the government is to go any further, it should commission a rigorous study to discover whether so-called birth tourism is a significant phenomenon. So far, the evidence is anecdotal. The available numbers in a given year are in the low hundreds. The real numbers may be higher, but it would be premature to remake the basics of our citizenship on a hunch.

Blood, soil, birth tourism and anchor babies – The Globe and Mail.

Related to this, the BC Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (Carmen Cheung and Audrey Macklin) wrote a comprehensive response to the earlier Jan Wong article on birth tourism (see my post Canada’s birthright citizenship policy makes us a nation of suckers):

But how serious an issue is birth tourism? While the government does not publish statistics on actual cases of birth tourism, Statistics Canada reports that of the 377,913 live births recorded in Canada for 2011, only 277 of those were by mothers who lived outside of Canada. The numbers were slightly higher in 2010 – 305 babies born to non-resident mothers out of 377,518 live births. That is less than one tenth of one percent of all births in Canada.

A recent article in Toronto Life magazine proposed another metric for measuring birth tourism, by collecting the number of uninsured mothers giving birth in Toronto-area hospitals over a five-year period. Based on those numbers, we’re still looking at less than one percent of all live births in the city of Toronto.

Using the number of uninsured mothers as a proxy also likely overstates the problem. Provincial health cards are only issued after a minimum period of residency in the province – this is the case whether an individual has arrived from another country as a landed immigrant, or has just moved from British Columbia to Ontario. There are also foreign nationals who are excluded from provincial health care schemes, such as students, temporary foreign workers and diplomats. Particularly vulnerable Canadian citizens – such as the homeless or transient – may also not be able to prove their eligibility for provincial health insurance because of lost documentation.

By any measure, the number of babies born to non-resident non-Canadian mothers is negligible.

Born Equal: Citizenship by Birth is Canada’s Valuable Legacy

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , , , , ,

Birth Tourism: My Canada AM interview

2014/08/26 4 Comments

From yesterday’s show, along with related CTV story.

And interesting, CIC Minister Alexander’s spokesperson responded to CTV’s request for comment with an innovative, for this government, recourse to evidence-based policy language:

Canada_AM_for_Monday__Aug__25__2014

‘Maternity tourism’: Report recommends limiting citizenship by birth

 

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

Ottawa urged to remove citizenship by birth on Canadian soil | Toronto Star

2014/08/19 2 Comments

Nicholas Keung’s story on the recently released under ATIP birth tourism briefing material (Citizenship Reform Proposal #19: Birth on Soil link to document), including my quote:

The proposal, marked “secret” and with inputs from various federal departments, found fewer than 500 cases of children being born to foreign nationals in Canada each year, amounting to just 0.14 per cent of the 360,000 total births per year in the country.

The issue of citizenship by birth on Canadian soil once again raises concerns among critics over the current government’s policy considerations being based on ideologies rather than evidence and objective cost-benefit analyses.

“An impartial observer would conclude that the evidence supports no need for change, given the small number of cases. Yet the recommendation supports the government’s public rhetoric and anecdotes on the need for change,” said Andrew Griffith, a former director general for citizenship and multiculturalism at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and author of Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias.

The Conservative government overhauled the Canadian Citizenship Act earlier this year by further restricting eligibility. However, the “birth on soil” provision was left intact and required further studies.

“Eliminating birth on soil in order to ensure that everyone who obtains citizenship at birth has a strong connection to Canada would have significant cost implications,” said the 17-page report prepared for former immigration minister Jason Kenney, obtained under an access to information request.

“The challenge of communicating this change would be convincing the public that restricting the acquisition of Canadian citizenship is worth that cost, particularly in a climate of deficit reduction.”

The office of Chris Alexander, Kenney’s successor, confirmed with the Star that the government is still reviewing citizenship policy with regard to the issue of “birth tourism” — a term referring to foreigners travelling to give birth in Canada so the baby can claim automatic citizenship here.

Dubbed “anchor babies,” these children are eligible to sponsor their foreign parents to Canada once they turn 18. It is unknown how many of them actually return to their birth country with their parents, but it’s believed the number is low.

“As provinces and territories are responsible for birth registration, consultation and co-ordination with the provinces is required,” said Alexis Pavlich, a spokesperson for Alexander.

“Canadian citizenship is an honour and a privilege, and our Conservative government is committed to increasing its value. Birth tourism undermines the integrity of our citizenship program and takes advantage of Canadian generosity.”

I have some outstanding ATIP requests to the key provinces (QC, ON, BC) on their data on “anchor babies” and will share when released.

And if you have a different take than me on Citizenship Reform Proposal #19: Birth on Soil, please share.

Ottawa urged to remove citizenship by birth on Canadian soil | Toronto Star.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

C-24 Citizenship Act: Clause-by-Clause Review – June 2

2014/06/03 1 Comment

Following Second Reading of Bill C-24 in the House last week, clause-by-clause review and voting started at Committee Monday. Not surprisingly, the Government was not open to any minor or major amendments, determined to have the Bill adopted as is. The opposition was united in its opposition to most of the provisions covered during the session.

No government amendments were proposed. Opposition amendments included:

  • Removal of the first generation limit to passing on citizenship and replacing it with a second generation limit;
  • Delete the “intent to reside” provision as it either is “meaningless” according to Ministerial testimony or unconstitutional according to a number of witnesses (and officials were less clear than the Minister in previous testimony on its constitutionality);
  • Revert to previous age requirements re language and knowledge testing (i.e., 18-54, rather than proposed 14-65);
  • Counting pre-Permanent Residents time towards citizenship as per current practice, particularly for international students given competition to attract them;
  • Provide credit for time working abroad for a Canadian company towards residency requirements;
  • Reduced discretion for Minister on health and compassion grounds;
  • No amendment tabled but opposition to the increased Ministerial discretion without independent or impartial hearing in cases of revocation for cases of fraud; and,
  • Remove provisions to strip dual citizens of their citizenship in case of convictions for terrorism and treason.

No amendments or debate on Clause 4 (Lost Canadians), 5 (Crown Servants), and 6 (Renunciation)

The most lively exchange took place near the end of the meeting. Stepping back from the individual provisions, both opposition parties expressed their substantive concerns regarding the cumulative effects of C-24 on access to Canadian citizenship. Moreover, the NDP sharply criticized the Government for ignoring any critical views of witnesses (“une très grande majorité opposée) and “shooting down all” amendments. The Liberals challenged the fundamental premise of the Bill that by making citizenship harder to get and easier to lose, this increased its value (“no evidence”). These “multiple barriers” would provide incentives to go elsewhere, particularly for international students.

The Government in turn reiterated its main points that C-24 dealt with the key points to citizenship. All Canadians would expect new citizens to indicate their intent to reside in Canada, and requiring elementary language competency for 14-64 is “not asking too much.” The Government wanted to ensure a “real connection” to Canada. An “extensive list” of witnesses supported these provisions.

Officials were not asked any questions during the session.

The Committee reconvenes Tuesday afternoon to continue clause-by-clause review.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, C-24, Citizenship

Canada’s birthright citizenship policy makes us a nation of suckers – Jan Wong

2014/05/24 Leave a comment

Jan Wong in Toronto Life does some serious research beyond the purely anecdotal. Much better than the government-led consultations in 2012, which was largely anecdotal with no hard numbers (sigh … see ‘Birth tourists’ believed to be using Canada’s citizenship laws as back door into the West | National Post).

Her numbers for the main Toronto birthing hospitals for non-medicare births (which also includes immigrants within the 3-month waiting period before coverage).

Number over 5 Years

Yearly Average

Sunnybrook

121

24

North York General

569

114

St. Michael’s

311

62

Mount Sinai

318

64

Total

1319

264

Compare this with the total number of live births in Ontario: 142,462 in 2012/13 and in Toronto itself, 30,800 in 2009 (latest data I could find from the City of Toronto website).

In other words, the 4 main birthing centres in Toronto together had less than 300 births per year, or just under 1 percent of all live births. What percentage of these are from birth tourism compared to pre-medicare eligibility cases is unclear. But a fix for a less than 1 percent problem is likely to be costly (how many other government programs can boast such a low fraud or error rate?).

So much of her arguments are more blather and outrage than dispassionate, with no consideration of the additional administrative cost and burden of addressing a relatively small problem. It is no accident that C-24 revisions to the Citizenship Act did not contain any provisions regarding jus soli (birthright citizenship). Too complex and costly.

Do we really have to make a more complicated and lengthy process of giving birth and registering a child for the other 99 percent? And does she really believe that any children of birth tourists who return to Canada will not contribute to the Canadian economy?

What is Canadian citizenship worth in cold hard cash? Like a birth tourist trying to decide whether to hand over $36,200, I crunched the numbers. Canadian citizenship, I calculated, is worth about $840,000 in tangible benefits, excluding welfare payments should you end up on the dole. Assuming a current average life expectancy of 81 years, free health care alone is worth at least $485,000 ($5,988 annually, but much more if you require major surgery or a long hospital stay), according to 2013 health data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Free public education is worth $174,750, according to international tuition rates charged by the Toronto District School Board. As for university tuition, a Canadian at the University of Toronto would save $58,512 over four years, because international students pay substantially more. Finally, an average old-age pension (from age 65 to 81) totals $121,624.

And those are just the measurable assets. What about clean air and water, an untainted food supply, an absence of famine and civil war, and a charter of rights and freedoms? Another incalculable advantage comes in adulthood during the job hunt. By law, many institutions can’t even consider hiring a foreigner unless there’s not a single qualified ­Canadian or landed immigrant applying for the job.

It’s difficult not to feel like a nation of suckers. Birth tourism is a form of immigration fraud that gives pregnant women and their families a way to jump the queue, while wasting our tax dollars and raising serious security concerns—who knows what happens to some of those passports down the line? Immigration Canada concedes it has no idea of the magnitude of the problem, because Ottawa doesn’t record whether a woman is pregnant when entering Canada. When this kind of immigration fraud is detected (a rarity), the potential consequence is, of course, deportation of the parent, but the child would still remain a Canadian citizen.

Canada’s birthright citizenship policy makes us a nation of suckers torontolife.com.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, C-24, Citizenship, Multiculturalism Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →