Pro-life groups need to defend birthright citizenship

2024/12/14 Leave a comment

Interesting take (but then again, Catholic organizations tend to support more generous immigration and related policies, unlike Evangelicals):

President-elect Donald Trump stated he plans to end birthright citizenship, which is currently guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The pro-life movement, which is as significant a part of the GOP base as the anti-immigrant caucus, needs to step up and oppose any attempt to end the conferral of citizenship on those born in the United States.

The foundational argument of the pro-life movement is that all life is sacred, and that once you start parsing who is, and who is not, entitled to certain rights, you are halfway down a slippery moral slope. All human beings, as human beings, should enjoy the same rights as every other human being.

The relationship of abortion policy to immigration policy might seem counterintuitive. The 14th Amendment doesn’t help the pro-life cause. It refers to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States …” Pro-choice groups argue that a human being only has a right to life once it is born, but once born, the rights that are conferred on the person are sacrosanct.

Those who drafted and enacted the 14th Amendment were not addressing the moral and legal issues surrounding abortion, and they didn’t have sonograms in 1866 when members of Congress began drafting the amendment after President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act that year.

The drafters of the 14th Amendment aimed to extend the equal protection of the laws to those formerly enslaved. They knew that the framers of the original Constitution had it wrong when they decreed that slaves only counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of representation in the Congress. They knew that the founders had been wrong about slavery entirely. They knew that this diminishment of the humanity of those who had been enslaved was an affront to our nation’s foundational claims about human freedom and legal equality.

The pro-life movement has always been constructed on this deeper moral concern, that no person should have their humanity diminished, even if the movement has failed to live up to this high ideal. The source of human rights is our civilizational belief in transcendent human dignity. Virtually every religion expresses this belief in some way. Ours expresses it in terms of the imago Dei, the belief that every person is made in the image of likeness of God. Every time the pro-life movement ignores other threats to this God-given human dignity, it weakens its credibility.

“Catholic social thought starts with the dignity of each person and the whole person,” Dylan Corbett, executive director of the Hope Border Institute which advocates for immigrants, told me. “This is the bedrock of the church’s commitment to the poor, the unborn and the vulnerable, without distinction. In the coming months, the Trump administration’s targeting of our parishioners, neighbors and the essential workers in our communities simply because of immigration status will test the credibility of our moral witness.”

Kristen Day, director of Democrats for Life of America agrees. “Pro-life principles don’t end where Donald Trump’s pet projects begin,” she told me via email. “Remaining silent on the issue of birthright citizenship would betray our movement’s highest values because there is nothing pro-life about ending it. Life begins at conception, but it doesn’t end at birth.”

To be clear, even a democracy seriously engaged in working for equality will need to draw distinctions, to discriminate, between people. We all know a precocious 16- or 17-year-old who is more mature than some 20-somethings we know, but unless you are 18, you don’t get to vote. We wouldn’t want the government devising some kind of test that decides who is worthy to vote, and who isn’t, and so we set an arbitrary cutoff. That arbitrary cutoff is applied universally.

In terms of abortion policy, conception, viability and birth are the usual cutoffs, and there is an argument to be made for any of the three. Only the first coheres with Catholic teaching, and in most pluralistic democracies, the cutoff is at some point between conception and viability.

As a culture, a society and a polity, we need to learn how to think more deeply, and less arbitrarily, about where we draw such lines.

The idea that a person is a citizen of the place where he or she is born is a bulwark against any attempt to discriminate unjustly. A good way to sniff if a particular discrimination is just or unjust is to ask whether it is universal. Birthright citizenship is universal: It applies to everyone born here.

This political linkage of immigration and abortion cuts both ways. Pro-immigrant arguments would have greater moral cogency to many Americans if they were put forward by people who are committed to protecting the lives of unborn children, or at least not indifferent to the dignity of those unborn children. Given the polarization of the country, that moral linkage is not apparent to most and will be dismissed by many. Still, moral coherence eventually wins out most of the time.

At this moment in our nation’s political history, the pro-life movement should rally around the cause of defending birthright citizenship.

Source: Pro-life groups need to defend birthright citizenship

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

Experts pour cold water on Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship — but issue a stark warning

2024/12/12 Leave a comment

Think this assessment largely correct. More performative but not without consequences and distracts from what the administration can and will do:

…”President-elect Trump is trying to send a message to people all over the world and also to unauthorized immigrants in the United States that he’s going to be tough on immigration,” argued Julia Gelatt, the associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), a nonpartisan think tank.

“He hopes that people will choose not to make the trip to the United States and not try to enter,” she told Salon in a phone interview. “I think he also hopes that people who are living in the United States without status might opt to leave the country on their own.”

Trump has signaled an interest in repealing birthright citizenship since his first run for president, including the change in his immigration policy proposal in 2015, according to CNN. Trump insisted to Axios in 2018 that it was possible to do so through an executive order and last May, Trump released a campaign video proclaiming he would sign an executive order to roll back the right on day one of his presidency, according to NBC News.

The impact of repealing the right would be immense. A 2020 MPI and Pennsylvania State University analysis found that ending birthright citizenship for U.S. babies with two undocumented immigrant parents would lead to a 4.7 million-person increase in the population of unauthorized people by 2050, including one million children born to two parents who had been born in the U.S. themselves.

That population would skyrocket to 24 million by 2050 from 11 million at the time of the analysis’ publishing if U.S. babies with only one undocumented parent were also denied citizenship, the researchers found.

Gelatt said that such an action from the Trump administration would create a “multigenerational class of people who are excluded from full rights” and citizenship, which would restrain their ability to achieve higher earnings, support their families and contribute to the country through taxes.

“Denying people that legal status, even if they’re born in the United States, would put people in a much more legally vulnerable, economically vulnerable position,” she said.

Depending on the exact language of Trump’s proposed executive order, ending birthright citizenship could also impact U.S.-born children’s parents, added Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor of immigration law practice at Cornell Law School. Such an order could potentially prevent officials from issuing passports, Social Security numbers or providing welfare benefits to family members of those children.

But Trump has no viable legal pathway to repealing birthright citizenship, Yale-Loehr told Salon in an email. An executive order can’t repeal an amendment, and any executive action Trump took attempting to do so would “trigger immediate litigation.”

Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution in 1868 with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, which was intended to grant citizenship and civil liberties to formerly enslaved African Americans. Contrary to what Trump told Welker, more than 30 nations, largely in the western hemisphere, provide birthright citizenship.

Amending the Constitution to upend the 14th Amendment would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate as well as ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Even with slim Republican majorities in both chambers during Trump’s next term, such a proposal would be unlikely to get past either chamber.

His proposed executive order is also unlikely to withstand any legal challenges as the likelihood of the Supreme Court, despite its conservative majority, striking birthright citizenship from the Constitution is slim to none, added Hiroshi Motomura, a UCLA School of Law professor and faculty co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and policy.

“Even though people say that the court has become more conservative, this would be even further in the direction of trying to overturn the past than we’ve seen,” he told Salon in a phone interview.

Ending birthright citizenship would upend the foundation of how the nation has historically seen itself — as a country of immigrants — flying in the face of the purpose of the American Civil War and much of the United States immigration history since its founding, Motomura said. He pointed to the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim ArkSupreme Court decision that held that U.S.-born children of Chinese immigrants were U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment even though their parents were, at the time, legally barred from obtaining citizenship under the Chinese Exclusion Acts.

“This is all part of the racial history of the United States. This is why this is so bedrock compared to other things that the Supreme Court is sometimes characterized for doing as being quite radical,” he explained. “This goes way beyond overruling Roe v. Wade. I think that was a radical move, but this is no comparison. This is quite a bit more of a rethinking of what the country is even about.”

Given how unlikely it is that Trump would succeed at repealing birthright citizenship, what purpose, then, could Trump’s focus on ending the right serve? Generating political value, Gelatt and Motomura argued, the former pointing to the importance of illegal immigration and the border to voters during the 2024 election.

Source: Experts pour cold water on Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship — but issue a stark warning

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Trump Prepares for Legal Fight Over His ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Curbs

2024/12/10 Leave a comment

Unlikely to succeed is the general consensus but we are seeing signs of those interested in becoming a member of the Supreme Court changing their position:

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team is drafting several versions of his long-promised executive order to curtail automatic citizenship for anyone born in the U.S., according to people familiar with the matter, as his aides prepare for an expanded legal fight.

Trump, who has railed against so-called birthright citizenship for years, said during his first term that he was planning an executive order that would outright ban it. Such an order was never signed, but the issue remained a focus of Trump’s immigration proposals during his re-election campaign. He has said he would tackle the issue in an executive order on day one of his second term.

Weeks before he takes office, Trump’s transition team is now considering how far to push the scope of such an order, knowing it would almost immediately be challenged in court, according to a transition official and others familiar with the matter. The eventual order is expected to focus on changing the requirements for documents issued by federal agencies that verify citizenship, such as a passport.

Through an executive order or the agency rule-making process, Trump is also expected to take steps to deter what Trump allies call “birth tourism,” in which pregnant women travel to the U.S. to have children, who receive the benefit of citizenship. One option on the table is to tighten the criteria to qualify for a tourist visa, according to people familiar with the Trump team’s thinking. Tourist visas are most often issued for a period of 10 years, though the tourist can’t stay in the U.S. on each visit for longer than six months.

Karoline Leavitt, a spokeswoman for the Trump transition, said the president-elect “will use every lever of power to deliver on his promises, and fix our broken immigration system once and for all.”

Some on the right have backed Trump’s plans and argued that birthright citizenship is a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, which dates back to the 19th century and in part granted full citizenship to former slaves. They have also criticized birth tourism. Companies in China have attracted attention in recent years for advertising such services, and airlines in Asia even started turning away some pregnant passengers they suspected of traveling to give birth.

“Because you happen to be in this country when your child is born, is not a reason for that child to be a U.S. citizen. It’s just silly, and the reliance on it in law is utterly misplaced,” said Ken Cuccinelli, a senior fellow at the Center for Renewing America, a pro-Trump think tank, who previously served as deputy secretary of Homeland Security.

Many constitutional scholars and civil-rights groups have said a change to birthright citizenship can’t be done through executive action and would require amending the Constitution—a rare and difficult process. The most recent amendment was ratified in 1992, more than 200 years after it was first proposed.

T rump on the campaign trail this year offered more details on what executive action related to birthright citizenship could include compared with his first term, a change that some backers took as an indication that he is more willing to act on the issue.

Trump said he would sign a “day one” executive order directing federal agencies to require a child to have at least one parent be either a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident to automatically become a U.S. citizen. It would also stop agencies from issuing passports, Social Security numbers and other welfare benefits to children who don’t meet the new requirement for citizenship, the president-elect’s campaign had said.

“My policy will choke off a major incentive for continued illegal immigration, deter more migrants from coming, and encourage many of the aliens Joe Biden has unlawfully let into our country to go back to their home countries,” Trump said in a campaign video.

But the requirement that at least one parent be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident would also affect children born to parents who immigrated legally through visas, excluding them from automatic citizenship. 

“The new piece of it is them talking publicly about the mechanism they might try to use to operationalize this unconstitutional plan,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “They just can’t do that consistent with the constitution.” 

“ Litigation is definitely going to follow,” he added. 

The Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship in its 1898 ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. But critics of automatic citizenship argue Trump’s proposed citizenship restrictions would be different from that case, which involved a child born to Chinese parents who were legal permanent residents in the U.S.

Trump’s allies say a legal fight that makes its way to the Supreme Court is the point of the executive order. 

“Force the issue and see what happens,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director for the Center for Immigration Studies, a group favoring immigration restrictions that was close to Trump’s first administration. Even with the court’s conservative majority, Krikorian isn’t optimistic about Trump’s chances.

“ I think they’ll probably uphold the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment,” he said. “They’re going to want to start that court fight as soon as possible to see if they can see it through to the end before the administration ends,” he said.

Source: Trump Prepares for Legal Fight Over His ‘Birthright Citizenship’ Curbs

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

Criminals in cribs: The crazy attempt to ban birthright citizenship

2024/12/05 Leave a comment

Never heard birth tourism described in this manner:

There have been some interesting discussions about birthright citizenship, intensified by Donald Trump’s election a few weeks ago.

A number of people who are angry at the chaos at the border have jumped right over the normal processes and procedures which would guarantee illegal border crossings are limited, and hit right at one of the core principles of our nation, one embedded in the 14th Amendment – if you are born here, regardless of the status of your parents, you are a U.S. citizen.

The actual wording of the amendment is as follows: “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.”

Those who don’t like the idea that birth on American territory automatically grants you the gift of American citizenship have started to parse the words of the amendment. They are doing what gun reform activists tried to do with the 2nd Amendment, making the “right to bear arms” a collective right held by “militias,” not an individual and a personal right for each and every American citizen. That parsing, which would make every Catholic school English teacher who ever diagrammed a sentence on a blackboard proud, was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, which recognized an individual right to own a gun. That being the case, conservative attempts to dismantle well over a century of constitutional precedent is dishonest, and untenable.

Some argue the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of” means parents of the child born in this country must be legally here in order to confer citizenship. The point they are missing, or actually one of several points, is that it is not the parents who are conveying anything but life to the child.

It is the Constitution itself that is conveying citizenship. More importantly, virtually everyone physically present in the U.S., regardless of legal status, is subject to the jurisdiction of our government. If this were not the case, we can imagine a Batman style Gotham city environment, where illegal aliens could just commit crimes and the only thing we could do if we catch them is deport them. No arrests, no jail terms, no trials and no life sentences.

Imagine if that were the case with Laken Riley’s murderer, an illegal alien who is now going to spend the rest of his life behind bars. This writer would have been happier had he been sentenced to death, but that’s another column altogether.

The idea we can simply strip people of their citizenship and thereby erase a constitutional right, merely to solve a problematic but temporary problem at the border, is anathema. I know legal scholars have differed on the integrity of birthright citizenship, but they are going to need better arguments than those proffered by anti-immigration activists in order to be able to convince even this conservative Supreme Court of their legitimacy.

I am an immigration lawyer and my bias is incorporated into my viewpoint. Thirty years of doing this work will color anyone’s perspective on the laws governing immigration policy. I understand extremely well the importance of maintaining order at the border, but stripping people born here of their birthright, one over a century old in its recognition, on specious political grounds is not going to advance that goal.

People do not come here to “have” U.S. citizen children, who frankly can only be of benefit from an immigration perspective after the child turns 21 or in a few other very limited circumstances. The immigration laws already eliminate U.S. citizen children as the basis of most waivers of inadmissibility and against deportation/removal, so this is simply an appeal to the lowest common denominator, the basest instincts of the xenophobic.

Where will we draw the line? Is being born to a citizen the only way to ensure the citizenship of the child? Is being born to a visitor who has the right to live here for a few months enough? Do you need your green card? And is this what we want, a world where your value is based on your parents’ status in the country? I don’t think that Americans are that sort of people.

So even if you do support Trump’s more draconian policies on immigration, you are not as patriotic as you think if you are in favor of making newborns criminals in their cribs.

Source: Criminals in cribs: The crazy attempt to ban birthright citizenship

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Judge James Ho Kicks Off The Auditions For Trump’s Next Supreme Court Pick [birthright citizenship]

2024/11/19 Leave a comment

The malleability of legal reasoning and principles (or lack thereof) never ceases to amaze me:

The audition process for potential open Supreme Court seats is off and running, thanks to the possibility that conservative justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas could decide to retire during Donald Trump’s second term.

First out of the gate is the hard-right Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho. In an interview with the conservative lawyer Josh Blackman, Ho, who was appointed to his current job by Trump, redefined his position on one of the most controversial issues likely to arise in Trump’s second term — and one of the few points on which he and Trump had disagreed — in order to ingratiate himself with the incoming president.

That issue is the 14th Amendment’s grant of birthright citizenship to (almost) all children born on U.S. soil.

Trump has promised to end birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, but as it now stands, that would be in plain violation of the Constitution and of the judiciary’s interpretation of the 14th amendment going back to 1898.

Previously, Ho endorsed the widely accepted view that birthright citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil, except for the children of foreign diplomats. In a 2006 paper titled “Defining ‘American’: Birthright Citizenship And The Original Understanding Of The 14th Amendment,” Ho made an originalist defense of the judiciary’s long-standing interpretation of birthright citizenship while arguing that the only way it could be restricted would be through a constitutional amendment — a much higher bar than Trump, acting on his own, could clear.

With Trump’s imminent return to the White House, Ho has now endorsed a tortured revision of his previous position that rests on endorsing Trump’s view that immigrants constitute an invasion.

“Anyone who reads my prior writings on these topics should see a direct connection between birthright citizenship and invasion,” Ho said in the interview with Blackman.

“Birthright citizenship is supported by various Supreme Court opinions, both unanimous and separate opinions involving Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and others. But birthright citizenship obviously doesn’t apply in case of war or invasion. No one to my knowledge has ever argued that the children of invading aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship. And I can’t imagine what the legal argument for that would be.”

Source: Judge James Ho Kicks Off The Auditions For Trump’s Next Supreme Court Pick

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Canadian citizen sparks outrage with claim that Indian women fly to Canada for free births, citizenship at taxpayer cost

2024/11/19 Leave a comment

This is getting a lot of coverage in Indian media despite being more an anecdote than buttressed by data. Expect to have updated non-resident self-pay data from CIHI, the best approximation of birth tourism data available shortly.

Unfortunately,this does not capture country of origin and there is no equivalent to Richmond General which had a highly visible cottage industry catering to birth tourists for Chinese women:

A video by Canadian citizen claimed pregnant Indian women were flooding Canadian maternity wards to secure citizenship for their babies, sparking heated debate.

Amid growing diplomatic tensions between India and Canada, a viral video has added fuel to the fire, further igniting the ongoing debate about immigration and healthcare policies. The video, shared by Canadian user Chad Eros on X, claims that Canadian maternity wards are being flooded by pregnant Indian women who are flying to Canada to give birth and secure Canadian citizenship for their babies. This provocative statement has captured the attention of many, adding another layer to the already heated discourse surrounding the two nations.

A heated rant over healthcare and citizenship

In his video, the Canadian citizen expresses frustration over what he perceives as an abuse of Canada’s healthcare system. He claims that these women are taking advantage of the country’s maternity services to ensure that their children are granted Canadian citizenship, all at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Chad goes on to share a personal story about his niece, who recently gave birth in a Canadian maternity ward. According to Chad, a nurse told his niece that the ward was full of foreign Indian women coming to Canada for the sole purpose of delivering their babies. Chad argues that while Canadian hospitals are obligated to provide care to all, these women are occupying valuable space in maternity wards that could be used by Canadian citizens.

Source: Canadian citizen sparks outrage with claim that Indian women fly to Canada for free births, citizenship at taxpayer cost


Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

USA: Ending Birthright Citizenship Is Harder Than It Sounds

2024/08/27 Leave a comment

Good analysis:

….All of this could affect birth tourism. In his last administration, Trump issued an executive order outlawing B1/B2 tourist visas for birth tourism, where an alien comes to the U.S. specifically to give birth here and “create” an American citizen, an “anchor baby,” who will file for legal status for his parents at age 21. Prior to Trump’s EO, traveling to the U.S. to give birth was fundamentally legal, although there are scattered cases of domestic authorities arresting operators of birth tourism agencies. Women abroad were often honest about their intentions when applying for visas and even showed contracts with doctors and hospitals to prove they would not become public charges.

As it stands, visitors will be denied temporary visas if it is found the “primary purpose” of their travel is to obtain citizenship for a child by giving birth in the United States. The rule does not apply to the 39 countries in the Visa Waiver Program, and the State Department in implementing the EO forbids its visa officers from even asking in most cases if an applicant is pregnant, making the order hard to enforce.

“This is the first recognition that it’s not OK to use a visitor visa for the purposes of ‘birth tourism,’ so it has a symbolic strength in that respect, at the same time it’s not a very effective way at going after the ‘birth tourism’ industry,” said an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute. While the federal government does not specifically track birth tourism, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention annually publishes the number of known births in the U.S. to foreign women who reside overseas—around 10,000 such births every year for the past few years.

Source: Ending Birthright Citizenship Is Harder Than It Sounds

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals water down citizenship for grandkids of convenience Canadians

2024/06/01 Leave a comment

While there is a diversity of perspectives among right leaning media, Sarkonak represents the consensus:

…Applying the court’s logic to any other situation reveals the absurdity of it all. If withholding citizenship from Canadian spawn two generations removed from home is discrimination, why not three? Four? And if any rule somehow can be perceived by a judge to reinforce a negative stereotype, what else violates equality rights?

Any reasonable government would have appealed, but not our feds. This decision granted legalistic cover to hand out more passports Oprah-style, and a higher court may not have been so generous.

The PR campaign to advance C-71 has taken care to focus on the saddest, most sympathetic stories that can be found: the cases of Type-A parents whose children have high “Canadian-ness” — speak our language, participate in our culture, share our values — but can’t, for whatever administrative reasons, obtain citizenship. These individual cases could be resolved through ministerial intervention today by Miller, which he knows and admits, but his government wants a rule so broad to include all.

On the other hand, there are others who barely have a Canadian connection at generation zero. Some are passport babies, whose mothers travelled to Canada for the purpose of obtaining citizenship for their children. According to Canadian Institute for Health Information data, compiled by analyst Andrew Griffiths for Policy Options magazine, there have been more than 40,000 of such births from 2010 to 2022.

Others have obtained Canadian privileges but have returned home. This was especially apparent in 2006, when the Lebanon civil war broke out that July. Some 40,000 people in Lebanon were registered with the Canadian embassy at the time, and $94 million was spent to evacuate about 14,000 of them to Canada; by September, the government estimated that 7,000 of those evacuees had returned to Lebanon, providing the catalyst for the Harper government to tighten citizenship rules in the first place.

New conflicts shake out new numbers. After fighting erupted in Sudan last year, prompting Canada to evacuate 175 Canadian citizens and permanent residents, Post columnist John Ivison spoke with a government source who estimated that up to half of the evacuees were “refugees who were granted status in Canada and then returned to Sudan, with some continuing to claim welfare and child benefits.”

“Most of these people have been living in Sudan for years,” said the source. “Sometimes they never really lived in Canada and don’t speak English or French.”

And who knows what the tally in Gaza is; in November, the foreign affairs department estimated that 600 Canadians, permanent residents and family members were in the strip. Some of these no doubt include aid workers, but by news reports, they also include young families who are clearly being raised intentionally abroad.

Those children can grow up elsewhere, without learning any English or French, without becoming attuned to our ways of life, our common sense of right and wrong; without ever paying Canadian taxes. Without giving anything in return, they can turn to the Canadian state for help — rescue, health care, and so on. The same can be said for their children, who only need to spend a few years in Canada to be eligible to pass on the same to their children.

The Liberal bill would ensure that the rest of Canada — those of us who have received the Canadian tradition and intend to preserve it for our children, who have a direct interest in our state’s success, who pay income taxes throughout our lives — could be obligated to support three whole generations of convenience-citizens as if they were our countrymen the whole time. It would do so under the guise of helping a narrow group of expats who can, at best, receive help from the minister, and, at worst, have their children apply for citizenship the normal way.

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Liberals water down citizenship for grandkids of convenience Canadians

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

In Bid to Curb Immigration, France to Scrap Birthright Citizenship in Mayotte

2024/02/12 Leave a comment

Always found French overseas territories odd and suspect that other overseas territories may also be vulnerable to losing this birthright, despite the official denial:

Children of immigrants born in Mayotte, the French overseas territory situated between Madagascar and the African mainland, will no longer automatically become French citizens, Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin said late on Sunday.

“It will no longer be possible to become French if one is not the child of French parents”, Darmanin told journalists upon his arrival on the island, announcing the scrapping of birthright citizenship there – a first in recent French history.

Located close to the impoverished Comoro islands off the East African coast, the former French colony has become the centre of fierce social unrest, with many residents blaming undocumented immigration for the deteriorating conditions.

Much poorer than mainland France, Mayotte has been shaken by gang violence and social unrest for decades. The situation has recently worsened amid a water shortage.

Since January, island residents have been staging strikes and erecting roadblocks to protest against what they say are unacceptable living conditions, paralyzing large parts of local infrastructure.

The reform, which Darmanin said was the idea of French President Emmanuel Macron, will require a change of the constitution.

It comes less than three weeks after France’s highest court scrapped large parts of a new immigration law designed to toughen access to welfare benefits for foreigners and curb the number of new arrivals into the country.

Immigration is a hot-button issue in France, one of Europe’s strongholds for far right anti-immigration parties.

Darmanin said, however, that “there is no question of doing this for other territories of the Republic.”

Source: In Bid to Curb Immigration, France to Scrap Birthright Citizenship in Mayotte

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Stop Granting U.S. Citizenship to Children of Foreign Diplomats

2024/02/08 Leave a comment

Interesting distinction that the USA makes between diplomats and administrative and consular staff. Canada does not make that distinction and any child of a representative of a foreign government is not entitled to Canadian citizenship. The only exception, likely rare, if one of the parents is also Canadian citizen or Permanent Residents when the child is born.

However, the Vavilov case indicated that undeclared foreign representatives such as spies, can obtain citizenship for their offspring, based on what was an overly narrow interpretation by the Supreme Court. Any future change to the Citizenship Act should address this gap.

Likely CIS overstates the the risks and the extent of the practise given their overall orientation:

…Under State Department’s complicated rules, babies born in this country to blue-list diplomats are not considered U.S. citizens, while white-list offspring, born from parents who are typically administrative or consular staff, are deemed full Americans. This strange outcome ignores the fact that, in both cases, the foreign parents are temporarily in our country, employed by another government or international organization, and enjoying unique diplomatic privileges or immunities. The State Department’s Office of Foreign Missions (OFM) is charged with keeping up with the distinctions and managing this dubious system.

Categorizing foreign officials on one list or another can be a tricky matter, often manipulated by unscrupulous foreign missions that seek to help a pregnant female staffer birth an American citizen. As the Sobhani case demonstrates, OFM’s important function, if not done right, can result in wrongly handing out U.S. passports.

For years, my colleagues at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)have monitored and analyzed this poorly conceived and run system, calling out the vulnerabilities in managing it. No one at the State Department really takes full ownership of supervising the diplomatic lists, as the Sobhani case illustrates, with its administrative headaches and processing confusion. Moreover, it all rests on a fundamentally flawed interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause. CIS has rightly called on the State to change the system.

At any given time, there are some 100,000 foreign diplomats and their dependents living in the United States. These officials are accredited to bilateral embassies and consulates as well as a plethora of international organizations, most significantly the United Nations and its satellite entities. Keeping up with these people is a major challenge.

Although many, perhaps most, foreign officials are professionals not interested in exploiting their diplomatic presence, a significant number are out to game their privileges, including scoring U.S. passports for relatives and friends.

Source: Stop Granting U.S. Citizenship to Children of Foreign Diplomats

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →