No surprise, these programs are almost designed for fraud:
Allegations of fraud in the citizenship by investment programme of St Kitts and Nevis have followed revelations supported by documentary evidence that agents in Dubai are selling passports at substantially below government-sanctioned rates.
Caribbean News Now is in possession of a copy of a letter purportedly sent by the Citizenship by Investment Unit (CIU) of St Kitts and Nevis to a local authorised agent. The letter states that “the application via real estate option” in a named development for a specified individual “has been approved in principle for Citizenship by Investment”.
The letter goes on to say that “payment of US$150,000 must be made within six months”. However, the minimum amount required by law under the real estate option is an investment of $200,000, not $150,000 as stated in the letter.
The citizenship agents concerned told Caribbean News Now that the firm “has never received such a letter from the unit and has never forwarded such a letter to anyone.”
“On learning of this development, we have met with the CIU and have written officially to request that the unit fully investigate this matter,” the firm said in a written statement.
In response to a request for clarification and comment, Les Khan, CEO of the CIU, told Caribbean News Now that there are no government sanctioned discounts on any of the investment options. He insisted that the unit does not accept applications for any of its offerings below the price that is published in the regulations.
“Any letters from the unit will reflect the amounts as published,” he said. “In the case of the contribution, our letter will stipulate the contribution amount and whether it was the Hurricane Relief Fund, the Sustainable Growth Fund or the SIDF [Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation].”
Khan went on to state that the “contribution letters will not stipulate any development. In terms of the real estate offering, an approval letter will have the real estate fees required for the investment,” adding that “This letter will have the name of the development.”
Given that the letter in question purports to be an approval letter under the real estate option, “the real estate fees required for the investment” are conspicuous by their absence. It appears instead to be based on a “contribution letter” that has been tampered with in some way, including the somewhat curious turn of phrase “the application via real estate option”.
According to Khan, the matter is currently under investigation by the CIU but, in the meantime, the flurry of agents in the Middle East offering St Kitts and Nevis citizenship at the greatly reduced rates outlined above has yet to be explained.
This revelation follows allegations at a recent press conference by leader of the opposition, Dr Denzil Douglas, that the government is allowing St Kitts and Nevis economic citizenship to be sold for as little as US$37,500,
In a press statement last week, Khan said he had just returned from a marketing trip to Abu Dhabi and Dubai, where he took the opportunity to have a series of one-to-one meetings with agents across those territories in order to reinforce that the investment options remain unchanged at US$400,000 and US$200,000 for real estate and US$150,000 for the Sustainable Growth Fund (for a single applicant).
However, the allegations by Douglas have been reinforced, and Khan’s denials contradicted, by a number of advertisements appearing on social media in the Middle East, confirmed by direct messages from the citizenship consultants involved seen by Caribbean News Now.
For example, Savory & Partners explicitly offer St Kitts and Nevis citizenship for a single applicant for $113,347 “all inclusive”, which presumably refers to the government’s additional due diligence fee of $7,500.
This compares to the government’s published total of $167,500 ($150,000 + $7,500) and, according to Savory & Partners, represents a “limited time offer for our valued clients”.
Another firm, Citizenship Invest, offers an even lower “limited offer” rate of $100,000.
Multi Passports offers yet another lower rate of $99,000 “all inclusive” for a single applicant, as well as $145,000, again “all inclusive”, for a family of four, compared to the rate stated on the CIU website of $195,000 plus due diligence fees.
AAA Associates advertises a family rate of $155,000, also confirmed by direct messages seen by Caribbean News Now, compared to the official rate of $195,000 plus due diligence fees.
It is not yet clear what prompted at least four agents, and reportedly many more, to start offering St Kitts and Nevis citizenship at these substantially reduced investment requirements when the CIU is saying that such options are not in fact available.
Major stakeholders in the economic citizenship industry are now demanding answers, as pressure grows on the St Kitts and Nevis government to explain the contradictions between its exculpatory statements and the available evidence.
My Policy Options article (Read Story) prompted more comment. I agree with Selley in his critique of the over-reaction by the Liberals and the NDP to the CPC policy resolution calling for an end to birthright citizenship and the reflexive labelling of the proposal as racist or xenophobic rather than a measured response.
Which, as Selley notes, the government now has in its plans to study the issue using the same data from CIHI that I used in my article:
Well, here’s something curious. Last week the Liberal government announced it has commissioned research on “birth tourism” — that is, the practice of coming to Canada with the sole intent of giving birth, then returning home with a child who’s a Canadian citizen. “The government of Canada recognizes the need to better understand the extent of this practice as well as its impacts,” Citizenship Minister Ahmed Hussen wrote in a response tabled in Parliament.
It’s in reaction to new research by Andrew Griffith, a former senior official at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, published last week in Policy Options. It suggests the practice may be far more widespread than had previously been thought.
Earlier reported numbers from Statistics Canada, based on provincial records, suggested there might be 300 such births in a year. But a single hospital in Richmond, B.C., was reporting more. Griffith turned instead to the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s discharge abstract database, and found that 1.2 per cent of births between 2010 and 2017 in Canada, excluding Quebec, were to non-resident mothers.
That excludes refugee claimants and permanent residents who aren’t yet eligible for their province’s medical insurance; they are categorized separately. It includes people who aren’t birth tourists as we commonly think of them: Foreigners posted to Canada by their employers, international students, and Canadian expats returning home to give birth.
Even if just half of those are “birth tourists,” though — a conservative estimate, in Griffith’s view — it’s still more than five times what had been reported. We might be granting citizenship to more birth tourist babies than Prince Edward Islander babies. The numbers grew steadily from 1,354 in 2010 to 3,628 in 2017.
None of that is to say this is a massive problem. I say it’s curious because earlier this year, when Conservative Party of Canada members approved a resolution in favour of the most superficially obvious solution — don’t grant automatic citizenship to Canadian-born children of parents who aren’t citizens or permanent residents — the Liberals, along with much of the Canadian media, went absolutely bananas.
“The NDP unequivocally condemns the division and hate being peddled by Andrew Scheer and the CPC,” leader Jagmeet Singh tweeted. Gerald Butts, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s principal secretary, lamented that the Conservatives “committed to give the government the power to strip people born in Canada of Canadian citizenship.”
Media consumers were told the policy would create stateless children. But Canada is bound by treaty not to create stateless people, as are the majority of countries around the world that do not grant absolute birthright citizenship. Even the Conservatives’ law stripping convicted terrorists of Canadian citizenship respected obligations regarding statelessness; there’s every reason to believe these changes would as well.
“(It’s a) shame to see the Conservatives going back down the path established by the Harper government, which seeks to strip away the citizenship of people who have only ever known Canada as a home,” a spokesperson for Citizenship Minister Ahmed Hussen fulminated.
You would never know it was Richmond MP Joe Peschisolido, a Liberal, who sponsored a petition asking the government to condemn birth tourism and figure out how to stop it. And you would certainly never know lawyers for Hussen’s department were in court arguing not to grant citizenship to two Canadian-born children of Russian spies.
“Only 34 countries grant the automatic acquisition of citizenship through birthplace regardless of parents’ nationality or status,” the federal submission argued (noting none of the 34 are in Europe). “This practice is not consistent and uniform enough to ground a rule of customary international law.”
This is a trick only Liberals can pull off: Deny a problem exists; denounce those who suggest it exists as despicable human beings trying to foment social unrest; later accept there may actually be a problem without the slightest bit of humility, and if possible continue denouncing those who think there’s a problem even while trying to solve it. It speaks ill of our political arena that they get away with it so often.
None of the potential solutions are especially palatable. Griffith suggests asking visa applicants whether they intend to give birth in Canada; misrepresentation could lead to revocation of the child’s citizenship, as it would have been acquired fraudulently. He suspects enforcement would be “virtually impossible,” however. And asking visiting women about their reproductive intentions is the sort of thing Liberals would scream bloody murder about in opposition.
The Conservatives examined the idea of limiting birthright citizenship but ultimately rejected it for reasons of cost and practicality. But after studying the problem more in depth, if the problem really is five times or more bigger than we thought, there is no reason not to consider it again. This is something nearly every country comparable to Canada does without violating human rights. It makes perfect sense: We don’t grant citizenship to children of foreign diplomats; why grant it to others whose parents have no personal link to Canada? There is something more than a bit weird about a country where such a normal idea can be met with such hysteria.
More on Irish birthright citizenship debates, where the case of a young boy has helped shift opinion:
Ireland, which seems intent on bucking the illiberal tide in the West, is at it again: As other countries move to tighten restrictions on immigration, the Irish public is overwhelmingly in favor of a proposal to reinstate birthright citizenship.
A proposed law on the subject passed a preliminary vote in the Irish Senate on Wednesday, three days after an opinion poll for the Irish edition of The Sunday Times of London showed that 71 percent of respondents favor birthright citizenship. Nineteen percent were opposed and 10 percent undecided.
Should it be enacted, the proposed law would grant the right to citizenship to any person who is born in Ireland and subsequently lives in the country for three years, regardless of the parents’ citizenship or residency status. It would largely reverse the effect of 2004 referendum in which 79 percent of voters supported the removal of a constitutional provision granting citizenship to anyone born in Ireland.
This remarkable swing in public opinion, at a time when President Trump has called for ending birthright citizenship in the United States, follows a high-profile case in which Eric Zhi Ying Xue, a 9-year-old boy who was born in Ireland, was threatened last month with deportation along with his Chinese mother.
His teachers and classmates at St. Cronan’s School in County Wicklow rallied around him, and a petition asking the government not to deport Eric or his mother collected 50,000 signatures within a few days. The family was instead given three months to make a case to be given legal permission to remain in the country, a possible route to full citizenship.
As popular as it may be, the birthright citizenship proposal has one critical opponent: the Irish government, which says it will seek to defeat the new bill.
The government’s opposition is based on the special relationship between Ireland and Northern Ireland, said a spokesman for the Department of Justice and Equality, which has responsibility for immigration matters.
Although Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, its people are legally entitled to both British and Irish citizenship. The Irish government fears that people living illegally in Britain could move to Northern Ireland, give birth to a child there and obtain Irish citizenship for their child after living there for three years.
The parents could then use the child’s citizenship to obtain residency anywhere in Ireland or the United Kingdom which, though separate countries, confer extensive mutual residency and travel rights on each other’s citizens.
There are also concerns that British residents seeking to retain European rights to free movement after Britain leaves the European Union might use the same mechanism to obtain citizenship in the Republic of Ireland, which will remain in the bloc.
The case of Eric Zhi Ying Xue, who was born in Ireland and threatened with deportation, galvanized public opinion in favor of birthright citizenship.
The spokesman also said that the present path to citizenship for those born in Ireland was aligned with the provisions in most other European Union member states, and that the government had the discretion to make exceptions in difficult cases. Under the current system, the Irish-born individual must have at least one Irish parent, or several years of legal residency in Ireland by a parent, to qualify for citizenship.
Ivana Bacik, the senator who introduced the bill, said that the current immigration system was too slow and too dependent on the opaque decisions of officials.
“Over the last few years, we’ve seen a number of cases of children born and raised in Ireland, yet who are threatened with deportation because their parents’ immigration cases have dragged on for years and years,” Ms. Bacik said.
“In cases like Eric’s, the ministers tend to intervene under public pressure and give leave to remain,” she said. “But it shouldn’t be up to the classmates of frightened children to mount campaigns to have them stay in the country.”
Ms. Bacik said that her bill had the support of the three main opposition parties, and that she was confident it would pass all stages in the Senate. But its prospects in the more powerful lower house, the Dail, are less certain.
“Whether it can pass in the Dail remains to be seen, but I’m hopeful,” she said. “The government is more trenchant in its opposition than we expected. Their talk in the Senate about new waves of immigrants was almost Trumpian. But even if they can defeat this bill, they will still have to do something to regularize people in this position.”
The Irish Council for Immigrants, an independent nongovernmental organization, said that Eric’s case was part of a broader problem relating to the registration and legalization of children who were either born in Ireland to undocumented immigrants or brought to the country when they were very young.
This year, pupils, teachers and parents at a school in Tullamore, County Offaly, successfully fought the deportation of Nonso Muojeke, a 14-year-old who was born in Nigeria but has lived in Ireland since the age of 2.
“It is really the classmates of these children who are standing up for them,” said Pippa Woolnough, a spokeswoman for the Irish Council for Immigrants. “It’s people saying, ‘Hang on, this is Eric or Nonso; I play with him after school and he’s part of our community. He’s as Irish as I am.’”
Immigrant support groups complain that Ireland’s immigration system is intimidating, inconsistent, slow and difficult to navigate. They want the government to make the system more streamlined and transparent, so that children threatened with deportation do not have to lobby in the hope that someone with influence will take an interest in their case.
Maeve Tierney, the principal of St. Cronan’s, where Eric is a student, said that she had heard from other schools that there could be several hundred more cases similar to those of Eric and Nonso, and that the government may have opposed the proposed changes for fear of setting a precedent.
But she said the current system was unfair and unsustainable.
“I’m not saying open the doors to everyone and anyone,” she said. “Any system can be exploited. But this is just wrong.”
Thousands of people could be stripped of their Austrian citizenship in what is being called the country’s version of the Windrush scandal.
In a campaign orchestrated by the far-Right Freedom Party (FPÖ), hundreds of Austrians of Turkish heritage are currently under investigation by the authorities on suspicion of illegally holding dual citizenship – and authorities say they may widen their investigations to thousands more.
Eighty-five have so far been stripped of their citizenship, but human rights campaigners say the case against them rests on suspect evidence.
Much as the UK invited the Caribbean immigrants of the Windrush Generation, in the sixties and seventies Austria encouraged Turkish people to move to the country, and many eventually became citizens.
But the Freedom Party, which is junior partner in the Austrian coalition government and controls the interior ministry, claims to have obtained a copy of the Turkish electoral register which it says proves thousands of secretly retained their Turkish citizenship as well.
Except for rare cases dual citizenship is illegal in Austria, and the authorities are pursuing the cases in court. But lawyers say the evidence is unreliable.
The Freedom Party has refused to say where it got its list of Turkish voters — and it has already been proved that some of the names on the list are not Turkish citizens.
Cigdem Schiller, who was born in Austria to immigrant parents, was able to prove that she had legally renounced her Turkish citizenship.
“We were shocked when we got a letter about this. My wife burst into tears,” Ms Schiller’s husband, Ingo, said. “We went round to sort it out right away. But the official told us the Turkish electoral list was proof she had a Turkish passport.”
After repeated visits to the Turkish consulate, Ms Schiller was able to provide proof she had renounced Turkish citizenship. And she is not the only one: according to Austrian press reports 72 people named on the Freedom Party’s list have proved they are not Turkish citizens.
That hasn’t stopped the courts accepting the list as evidence. In one case earlier this year a court upheld the decision to strip one man of citizenship on the basis such a list could only have been drawn up by the Turkish authorities.
That has raised fears some people may end up being made stateless. Lawyers say their clients are being forced to prove they are not Turkish citizens, rather than having a case proved against them.
Some have found themselves left in a Catch-22 situation. Peter Weidisch, a laywer for a man named on the list, told Germany’s Welt newspaper the Turkish consulate had refused to help his client obtain the proof he needed — because he wasn’t a Turkish citizen.
While I had expected considerable media interest, given the substance and the politics of the issue, yesterday had me doing TV interviews on all major networks and a radio interview with Rob Breakenridge of Global news in Calgary.
More than one in five babies born in Metro Vancouver’s Richmond Hospital could be so-called “anchor babies” — children born to non-residents in order to gain Canadian citizenship — according to a new study.
The study, authored by the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP) and published Thursday in Policy Options magazine, suggests 21.9 per cent of the children delivered in Richmond Hospital are born to non-resident mothers — more than double the percentage born in any other Canadian hospital.
The IRPP study also shows the number of such children born in Canada is far higher than previously estimated.
While a Statistics Canada report found roughly 312 babies are born in the country each year to mothers whose place of residence is officially listed as outside of Canada, IRPP’s study put that number at closer to 1,500 or 2,000 children annually. The data shows the number of births to non-resident mothers — including all provinces but Quebec, which refused to release the data — skyrocketed to 3,628 last year from just 1,354 in 2010.
The issue of birth tourism — when pregnant women fly to Canada to give birth — is divisive because children born under such circumstances are automatically granted Canadian citizenship. They therefore enjoy all the attendant rights and privileges, such as access to domestic university fees as well as subsidized education and health care, even though their parents aren’t taxpayers and the children themselves will not necessarily be raised in Canada.
Joe Peschisolido, Liberal MP for Steveston-Richmond East, believes the revelation provided by the study has some troubling implications.
“Even though I believe the (birth tourism) epicentre is in Richmond — and at the hospital in Richmond — I think you’re starting to see birth tourism as an institution,” Peschisolido told StarMetro in a Thursday phone interview.
“There are individuals that are profiting from this. And I think that’s the most heinous thing. You’re getting individuals that are abusing … the immigration and citizenship system … and are profiting off of an illegitimate — and the government has said unethical — system.”
A Thursday statement from Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) confirmed the numbers in the IRPP study, though slightly more children were actually born to non-resident mothers in Richmond Hospital than the IRPP study accounted for.
While the IRPP study showed 469 non-resident births occurred in Richmond Hospital in 2017-18, VCH’s figures show 474 children were born to 469 resident mothers. The disparity, the statement explained, comes from the number of twins born in that time period.
And while the number of babies born to non-resident mothers has been increasing over the past several years — from 15.4 per cent of the total in 2014-15 to 22.1 per cent of the total in 2017-18 — the total number of babies born to all mothers decreased slightly this year, according to VCH.
The health authority also noted that non-residents are required to pay all hospital and medical-care costs for the mother and baby, including a prepayment deposit of $8,200 for a vaginal birth and $13,300 for a caesarean birth.
In March, Peschisolido sponsored a petition spearheaded by Richmond resident Kerry Starchuk calling on the federal government to condemn the “abusive and exploitative practice” of birth tourism.
Birth tourism, the petition said, fundamentally debases the value of Canadian citizenship; costs taxpayers money, since children of non-residents have access to services such as health care and subsidized education; and displaces residents from local hospital beds.
On Monday, the federal government tabled its response to Peschisolido’s petition, saying Canada does not currently collect information on whether a woman is pregnant when she enters Canada.
“A person is not inadmissible nor can they be denied a visa solely on the grounds that they are pregnant or that they may give birth in Canada,” the response reads.
And while misrepresenting the purpose of a visit to Canada to a federal officer carries “significant consequences,” the statement points out citizenship acquired through birth on Canadian soil has been policy since 1947.
Ottawa’s response, however, refers back to 2016 data from Statistics Canada, saying only about 300 of the 385,000 children born in Canada each year are born to non-resident mothers.
“This constitutes less than 0.1 per cent of the total number of births in Canada,” the response says, adding these numbers show the practice is not widespread but that the government has nevertheless commissioned research from the Canadian Institute for Health Information to look into the issue. It also committed to developing measures to address the institute’s findings.
Peschisolido said he was satisfied with the response. He said he hopes to participate in the review process once more granular data has been collected and responsible decisions can be made about the extent of birth tourism and what can be done to stop it.
But Will Tao, a Vancouver immigration lawyer, said he worries that focusing purely on statistics risks unnecessarily casting aspersions on all non-resident mothers.
“I don’t think (birth tourism) is the problem itself, so much as a symptom of the problem,” Tao told StarMetro. “I think the real problem is the unregulated nature of immigration advice.”
There are most certainly practitioners abroad who advise mothers to come to Canada to give birth as a kind of backdoor to citizenship, he said. And the federal government could do a better job providing a narrative — much in the way it has for individuals seeking refugee status — that would discourage abuses of the birthright policy, he said.
But there are countless non-residents who have children while in Canada for many other reasons. Those people, he said, should not be painted with the same brush as those who wilfully exploit the path to Canadian citizenship.
The IRPP study reflects that concern, noting its figures are not exact because they don’t express how many children were delivered by mothers with temporary status in Canada — a bracket that includes Canadian expatriates returning to give birth, corporate transferees and international students.
But researcher Andrew Griffith told The Star that a conservative estimate would suggest roughly 40 or 50 per cent of the non-resident mothers were birth tourists.
The study mined the Canadian Institute for Health Information discharge database, and according to Griffith, the IRPP’s figures — based on hospital financial data that codes services provided to non-residents under “other country resident self-pay” — more accurately reflect the number of non-resident births in Canada.
The IRPP study offered several options to address the problem of birth tourism, including:
Amending immigration laws to make it an offence if a woman fails to disclose the delivery of a child as the purpose of a visit to Canada and make that child’s citizenship fraudulent due to its procurement through misrepresentation
Adopting a “qualified” birthright approach by which a child is granted citizenship only when at least one parent is either a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and the child resides in Canada for at least 10 years after birth
Tao, the immigration lawyer, said he understood why people are shocked by how far above the national average the number of children born to non-resident mothers in Richmond Hospital are.
But through his interactions with clients, he said, he has encountered many families who could technically be called “birth tourists,” were that definition applied loosely enough. He said he was concerned that forthcoming regulations could encompass non-resident families or individuals whose children were born in Canada for legitimate reasons.
Tao also suggested a policy requiring immigration officials to question the motives of pregnant women as a matter of course could be “a very slippery slope into prejudice and background checking of other types.”
Griffiths, the researcher, agreed that birth tourism at the national level, currently accounting for roughly 0.5 per cent of the total annual live births in Canada according to the IRPP, is not a huge problem but suggested it should be monitored closely.
“Using this as a starting point, if we see any further increase or a trend line, then we need to take another fresh look at it,” he said.
But Peschisolido said that in a city like Richmond, where birth tourism appears to be a far more pervasive trend, every level of government has a responsibility to investigate how it can be slowed or stopped and what, exactly, may be driving it.
Article has attracted considerable interest on Twitter and in the media.
In the Toronto Star:
The number of so-called “anchor babies” — children born to non-residents for the purpose of gaining citizenship — is at least five times higher than Canadian officials had estimated, new research suggests.
Birth tourism in Canada, where women late in pregnancy fly in to deliver their babies here, is controversial because the newborns are automatically Canadian citizens and enjoy full citizenship rights such as free education and lower university fees, even though their foreign parents aren’t taxpayers.
Statistics Canada has, since 2013, counted 1,561 babies — about 312 annually — born here to mothers, whose place of residence was listed outside Canada, based on figures from provincial birth registries.
However, a new study from the Institute for Research on Public Policy released Thursday suggests the number of “anchor babies” born here every year is likely in the 1,500 to 2,000 range.
The study mined the Canadian Institute for Health Information discharge database, and according to researcher Andrew Griffith, the figures — based on hospital financial data that codes services provided to non-residents under “other country resident self-pay” — give a clearer picture of the extent of the problem.
The data shows the number of births to non-resident mothers (including all provinces but Quebec, which refused to release the data) skyrocketed to 3,628 last year from just 1,354 in 2010, said the report by the Montreal-based think tank. It showed the Richmond Hospital in British Columbia with the highest volume of babies born to non-resident mothers.
Of the top 10 hospitals where such births were recorded, six are in the GTA.
The numbers are not perfect because they don’t break down how many of the births were to mothers with temporary status in Canada, which include Canadian expatriates returning to give birth, corporate transferees or international students who didn’t come here to specifically to have children. But Griffith says a conservative estimate is that 40 to 50 per cent of the non-resident mothers were birth tourists.
“How the (delivery) services are paid for is a more representative and realistic measure than the provincial registries,” said Griffith, a retired director general with Immigration Canada, adding part of the discrepancy can be attributed to birth tourists using their temporary Canadian address on birth registration forms and hence not being counted as non-residents.
“The concern has always been these people are exploiting the loophole in the law to obtain citizenship for their children when they are not entitled to that. There’s also the financial liability and responsibility on Canadian taxpayers for the child’s benefits.”
Currently, immigration officials cannot refuse a visitor visa application on the basis of the applicant’s intent to give birth in Canada, though they can assess if the person has enough money to visit Canada, if they will abide by the visa’s departure date and if they have a criminal record and should be barred from entry.
In 2012, the then-Conservative federal government, under Stephen Harper, had considered a crackdown on birth tourism but discarded the idea because the relatively small number of incidents — based on an estimate of 500 cases a year — did not justify the anticipated costs of enforcement.
However, with immigration and refugees expected to become a wedge issue in next year’s federal election, the Conservatives voted this summer at the party’s convention to end the birthright citizenship policy that gives citizenship to babies born in Canada even if their parents aren’t citizens or don’t have legal status in Canada. The motion is non-binding but could be part of their campaign platform next year.
Griffith said any policy decision must be based on evidence and that’s what prompted him to seek out the most reliable data on the issue of birth tourism.
“Is it a widespread problem or is it just a phenomenon at the Richmond Hospital?” asked Griffith, referring to the B.C. hospital cited by the media as the epicentre of birth tourism. “We need data for informed decisions.”
He said birth tourism, currently accounting for roughly 0.5 per cent of the total annual live births in Canada, is not a huge problem but should be monitored closely.
“Using this as a starting point, if we see any further increase or a trend line, then we need to take another fresh look at it,” he said.
The study offers three options for policy-makers to tackle the problem if birth tourism gets out of control:
Amend immigration laws to make it an offence if a female visitor fails to disclose the purpose of her visit to give birth or declare her pregnancy to officials. The child’s citizenship would then be deemed fraudulently obtained due to misrepresentation by the mother.
Follow Australia’s move by adopting a “qualified” birthright approach specifying a person born in Canada would only be a Canadian citizen if the parent is either a Canadian citizen or permanent resident and the child lives in the country for 10 years after birth.
Introduce regulations prohibiting rooming houses and consultant and support services for birth tourists, substantially increasing the financial deposits required by hospitals from non-residents and ordering the provinces to require proof of payment prior to issuing birth certificates for children of non-resident mothers.
The CP article quoting Minister Hussen’s reactions to the findings along with other commentary:
With new research showing that more babies are born in Canada to foreign residents than Statistics Canada realized, the federal government is studying the issue of “birth tourism” in the hope of better understanding how many women travel to Canada to have babies who are born Canadian citizens.
Using numbers from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), which captures billing information directly from hospitals, researcher Andrew Griffith found over 3,200 babies were born here to women who weren’t Canadian residents in 2016 – compared with the 313 babies recorded by Statistics Canada.
The finding suggests not only that the numbers are higher than previously reported, but that it’s a growing trend, Griffith says.
“(The data) shows the steady growth in the number of babies born in hospitals to women who are residents of other countries, by absolute numbers and percentage, for all provinces except Quebec,” Griffith wrote in an article in Policy Options, published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy. “These births total just over one per cent of all live births in English Canada.”
A petition tabled recently in the House of Commons by Liberal MP Joe Peschisolido calls on Canada to take stronger measures to end birth tourism, saying it abuses Canada’s social-welfare system.
Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen responded by saying his department has commissioned research to get a better picture of the scope of the issue in Canada.
“While these statistics indicate that this is not a widespread practice, the government of Canada recognizes the need to better understand the extent of this practice as well as its impacts,” Hussen said in his response, tabled in Parliament.
The department has commissioned CIHI to perform this research.
The issue of so-called birth tourism has been polarizing in Canada, with the Liberals defending the current law that gives automatic citizenship to anyone born on Canadian soil except for children of foreign diplomats.
Conservative party members passed a policy resolution during their biennial convention this summer calling on the government to end birthright citizenship “unless one of the parents of the child born in Canada is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada.”
Leader Andrew Scheer said at the time one of the goals would be to end the practice of women coming to Canada simply to give birth to a child that will automatically have Canadian citizenship.
Other countries have ended or modified their birthright-citizenship laws, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, India, the Dominican Republic, Thailand and Portugal. Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to end birthright citizenship in the United States, although critics have argued such a change could violate that country’s constitution.
Canada did explore changing Canada’s existing birthright policy under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. This work ultimately found any change to the law would have significant impacts, according to a senior government official who spoke to The Canadian Press on background.
Many Canadians – 40 per cent or more – don’t have passports and use birth certificates to prove their citizenship. A change in birthright-citizenship rules would mean they’d need new forms of identification to prove their citizenship and get government services.
A 2013 estimate pegged the cost of changing the rules at $20 million to $30 million, plus $7 million in extra costs for the federal government every year, the senior official said. He further noted this did not include costs to the provinces and territories, which would be even higher because they’re responsible for more personal documents than the federal government is.
The Conservatives did not change the policy. Nor will the Liberals, said Mathieu Genest, a spokesman for Hussen.
“The birth-on-soil principle has been enshrined in our legislation since Canadian citizenship first came into existence in 1947. A change to this principle was planned by the Harper Conservatives, but abandoned after listening to the advice of experts,” Genest said. But the Immigration Department still wants a better understanding of what’s going on.
Griffith said he was inspired to delve into the question of how prevalent birth tourism is in Canada after he noted the number of non-resident births reported for Richmond Hospital in B.C. were disproportionate to the rest of the country, as calculated by Statistics Canada.
The data he collected from CIHI captured the number of mothers who paid out-of-pocket for their hospital bills, which was at least five times higher. He acknowledged this would include Canadian expatriates and foreign students whose hospital expenses were not covered by Canadian medicare.
Ontario immigration lawyer Gordon Scott Campbell said he’s had several clients in recent years who have given birth while in Canada while in the middle of legitimate refugee or immigration processes.
For example, he said some women with visitor status live with their spouses while applying for spousal sponsorship, and some refugees arrive pregnant or become pregnant while waiting for their claims to be processed.
“It would seem extremely punitive, even misogynistic, arguably, to say that no woman should be able to become pregnant or be pregnant if you’re not a permanent resident or a citizen of Canada,” Campbell said.
“Are we talking about three people a year, four people a year, flying into Canada (to give birth)?” he asked. “I’m not sure we even have any proof of that. There might be anecdotal proof out there in media articles, but if we’re talking two or three people a year, it’s hardly a national crisis justifying legislation.”
Vancouver Coastal Health, the authority that oversees the Richmond Hospital, said Thursday that taxpayers don’t pay for non-resident births. The agency provided its own statistics, which differed slightly from Griffith’s findings but which were also out of keeping with the numbers of non-resident births in Canada reported by Statistics Canada.
Statistics Canada says it generates its data from demographic information provided by vital-statistics registries in the provinces and territories. Parents complete these registry forms and are responsible for filing them with local registrars, the agency said. Griffith believes Statistics Canada might record lower numbers of non-resident births because parents put local addresses on these forms that aren’t their real permanent addresses.
As part of his response to Parliament, Hussen said Canada does not collect information on whether a woman is pregnant when entering Canada, nor can a woman legally be denied entry solely because she is pregnant or might give birth in Canada.
Brian Lilley in the Toronto Sun who also wrote an earlier piece on surrogacy and birth tourism:
When it comes to hot tourism spots in Canada, few would put suburbs like Richmond, British Columbia or Scarborough, Ontario up there with the CN Tower or the Rockies.
But to a certain kind of tourist, these suburbs, and specifically their hospitals, are all the rage.
Written by Andrew Griffith, the former director general of Immigration Canada, the paper reveals significantly more women than thought are coming to Canada to deliver their babies and leave with a Canadian passport for their child.
“The level of birth tourism nationally is at least five times greater than the 300 births captured by Statistics Canada in 2016,” Griffith writes.
Instead of the Statistics Canada number, Griffith estimates that there were 3,628 babies born to foreign parents in 2017, and that doesn’t include numbers from Quebec.
“The impact of this practice can no longer be described as insignificant given its effect on the integrity of citizenship and public perceptions that birth tourism is a fraudulent shortcut to obtaining citizenship,” Griffith writes.
These figures don’t include landed immigrants or refugees, this is simply people who are simply visiting Canada when they give birth.
While some would be people visiting on a work or student visa, Griffith says that even with a conservative estimate of 40% to 50% the number is too high.
His search for better data on birth tourism was sparked by reports earlier this year showing more than 20% of births at the Richmond Hospital just outside Vancouver were due to birth tourism.
Of 2,145 births at this hospital in 2017-18, 469 were non-resident births.
The second highest hospital tracked by Griffith for the paper is Scarborough and Rouge Hospital — Birchmount site in Toronto’s East End and St. Mary’s Hospital in Montreal.
Both of those sites saw more than 9% of all births involve non-residents.
One thing all the hospitals on the list have in common is easy access to a major airport and direct flights in and out of Canada.
A petition sponsored by Liberal MP Joe Peschisolido, who represents the Richmond area, calls on the government to study the problem of birth tourism and take steps to end it.
So far the petition has garnered almost 11,000 signatures.
The previous Harper government considered taking action to stopping birth tourism but with StatsCan saying there were only a few hundred cases a year, the cost to enforce any new measures was deemed too high.
The numbers tracked by Griffith show the number of births to non-resident mothers has just about tripled between 2010 and 2017.
None of this includes the numbers I revealed in this paper a week ago showing 44% of surrogacy births in British Columbia in 2016 and 2017 were for foreign based parents using a Canadian surrogate.
Each of those children, regardless of the status of the parents, gets full Canadian citizenship and all the benefits that entails. Even if the mother only flew into Canada and checked into the hospital for the express purpose of giving birth.
Isn’t that making a mockery of our system?
Doesn’t that debase Canadian citizenship?
There are lawyers, consultants and “global mobility solutions” experts offering services on having a baby in Canada in order to get a Canadian passport for the baby.
The Conservative Party passed a resolution at their convention this past summer to end the practice of birth tourism.
That move was instantly attacked by Trudeau’s top aide Gerald Butts as, “a deeply wrong and disturbing idea.”
You’ll recall that Trudeau famously campaigned to give back Canadian citizenship to convicted terrorists who had dual citizenship and who had taken up arms against Canada.
His mantra was that a Canadian, is a Canadian, is a Canadian.
It’s a handy catch phrase and useful when the real purpose is to try and sound compassionate and scare immigrants.
The truth is that under Trudeau Canada has still stripped many people of citizenship. From former Nazis to people that lied on their applications to come here.
The simple fact of the matter is that Canadians get to decide who gets citizenship, and we do that all the time.
Changing the law to end birth tourism, a growing and disturbing trend, would hardly be controversial for most Canadians.
Let’s hope someone in the political world has the courage to take up this issue.
An article in The Breaker on the formal government response to the petition by MP Peschisolido (written before my article came out):
The federal Liberal government says it will undertake further research into birth tourism.
That, according to Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen’s Nov. 19 response to an electronic petition initiated by Richmond activist Kerry Starchuk and sponsored by Steveston-Richmond East Liberal MP Joe Peschisolido.
Starchuk’s petition, which was supported by 10,882 people, was brought to the House of Commons on Oct. 5 by Peschisolido. It called upon the government to state it opposes birth tourism, commit public resources to determine the full extent of the practice and implement concrete measures to reduce and eliminate the practice. Under federal law, MP-endorsed electronic petitions that gain 500 or more supporters within four months are tabled in the House of Commons.
Citizenship acquired through birth on soil has been in place since the first Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947, though it does not apply to children of anyone representing or working for a foreign government. Richmond Hospital averages one foreign birth a day and there have been cases where local mothers have been transferred to other hospitals to make way for foreign mothers. Petitioner Starchuk is also concerned with the potential future health and education costs to taxpayers.
The 354-word response said the government does not collect information on whether a woman is pregnant when entering the country, and a person cannot be deemed inadmissible or denied a visa if they are pregnant or if they may give birth in the country. But foreign nationals are required to state the purpose of their visit.
“Applicants must always be honest about the purpose of their visit. Providing false information or documents when dealing with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada or Canada Border Services Agency is considered misrepresentation and has significant consequences,” said the official response.
The response quoted from 2016 Statistics Canada data that said only 300 children were born to foreign women among the 385,000 babies born in the country that year. But that data has been discredited in media reports which found public agencies do not harmonize their research and there are loopholes that prevent accurate data collection.
The Richmond News reported in June that many non-resident women who give birth at Richmond Hospital list their address as a birth house or birth hostel where they are temporarily staying. Richmond Hospital saw a jump in self-pay births from non-resident mothers from 299 in 2015-2016 to 379 a year later. Most were from China.
RICHMOND HOSPITAL (MACKIN)
“Should the birth house operator list the address of their home business at the hospital’s registration desk, the ministry would not count the baby as a non-resident,” the newspaper reported. “Only when the true address of the mother is registered, does the birth become a non-resident in the eyes of Vital Statistics B.C.”
The response said the federal government “recognizes the need to better understand the extent of this practice as well as its impacts. IRCC has commissioned research from the Canadian Institute for Health Information, which also show the number of children born to non-residents who were required to pay hospital expenses to be less than 1% of total births in Canada, and will undertake further research in this regard.”
Starchuk said the response lacks details about the government’s next steps.
“There’s no deadline, they’ve left it open-ended,” Starchuk told theBreaker. “How long are they going to take to do it?”
She was also perplexed why such a multifaceted issue attracted a response from only the immigration minister, but not the ministers of public safety (Ralph Goodale) or border security (Bill Blair).
The response also said the government is “committed to protecting the public from fraud and unethical consulting practices and protecting the integrity of Canada’s immigration and citizenship programs,” so it is undertaking a comprehensive review aimed at cracking down on unscrupulous consultants and those who exploit programs through misrepresentation.”
In 2016, Starchuk also petitioned the federal government to end birth tourism, but the December 2016 reply from then-Immigration Minister John McCallum dismissed the issue. McCallum was later appointed Canada’s ambassador to China.
Lastly, an op-ed by Jamie Liew of University of Ottawa law faculty written before my analysis, quoting my comments dismissing the issue as insignificant given the previous numbers (my position has evolved :):
There’s been a lot of talk about getting rid of birthright citizenship in Canada and the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he’ll issue an executive order to do so, and the Conservative Party of Canada passed a motion that, should they form the next federal government, birthright citizenship will be no more.
In the U.S., the president will have to contend with the fact that he can’t just unilaterally eliminate a right granted in the 14th Amendment of their constitution.
In Canada, birthright citizenship can be eliminated simply by amending or repealing parts of the Citizenship Act.
In both countries, the preoccupation with ending birthright citizenship is tied to the argument that migrants are engaging in “birth tourism” and challenging the integrity of citizenship. But the facts say otherwise.
As Andrew Griffith, former director general at Citizenship and Immigration Canada, points out, fewer than 0.1 per cent of total births in Canada in the past 10 years (except 2012) involved births of children to foreign mothers. Griffiths concludes, “An impartial observer would conclude that there is currently no business case for changing Canada’s birth policy.”
Aside from the business case, what’s not talked about is how the elimination of birthright citizenship would affect not just migrants, but all of us. Undoubtedly, such a policy would increase the number of stateless persons in Canada.
Every person born in Canada to non-citizen parents would have to apply for citizenship. More tax dollars would be needed to process the applications. Clerks would suddenly have the power to make substantive and legal determinations about the status of every person who applies for citizenship. Like any administrative system, mistakes would be made. Bad or wrong decisions would be challenged in the courts at great expense to both the state and people affected. People would struggle with the fact that they are stateless in the interim.
Being stateless has serious implications.
Stateless persons have difficulty accessing education, employment, health care, social services and freedom of movement. Simple things such as getting a bank account, cellphone account or registering birth, marriage or death are complicated, if not impossible. Stateless persons would be subject to arrest, detention and potential removal to places they may never have been to.
The elimination of birthright citizenship would have the greatest effect on the most vulnerable: the indigent, the less educated, those with mental illness, children in precarious family situations or wards of the state. These are the people who may not have the appropriate paperwork or proof that they do qualify for citizenship or they won’t have support for obtaining citizenship.
This one policy would create an expensive social problem for the state.
The elimination of birthright citizenship is, then, not an act to preserve or protect the integrity of citizenship. The policy is a dividing tool that fuels discrimination against those of different races and socioeconomic classes. It’s a tool to delegitimize persons who have a genuine and effective link to Canada. It would create barriers to important rights that come with citizenship, including the right to vote.
We only need to look at how stripping citizenship and the denial of citizenship in other places of the world have encouraged discrimination, persecution and violence against stateless persons. For example, the oppression of and the genocide against Rohingya people was precipitated by denial of their citizenship in Myanmar, a country they called home for generations.
Canadians should be cautious when considering the idea to get rid of birthright citizenship. It wouldn’t stop migrants from coming. Instead of making it harder to get citizenship, we should trust our well-oiled immigration system to deal with the entry of persons within our country.
Such a policy would not build confidence in the integrity of Canadian citizenship. Instead, citizenship would be more precarious than ever before.
Canadians should also be mindful that Canada has signed onto the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, both of which obligate Canada not to create situations of statelessness.
My father was born stateless because the state he was born into didn’t confer birthright citizenship. It affected his opportunity for education, employment and his mental health.
Being a child of a previously stateless person, I’m proof enough that welcoming stateless persons to Canada with the conferral of citizenship is the best way to build a nation.
American presidents long have exercised broad powers over immigration policy. But what are the limits? Since his first days in office, President Trump has forced a national conversation around that question. One of his enduring legacies, for better or worse, may be to compel some hard answers.
In recent weeks alone, President Trump has claimed the authority to end birthright citizenship, issued an executive proclamation to drastically limit asylum eligibility, and deployed thousands of U.S. military troops to enforce immigration law. In each instance, Trump has claimed the inherent presidential authority to do so, with or without congressional approval, and perhaps even despite its disapproval.
Meanwhile, in a recent Supreme Court filing, the Trump administration rigorously defended its decision to terminate President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for undocumented youth. In that ongoing litigation, the Trump administration argues that rescinding DACA is justified because the Obama administration exceeded executive authority when it first created the program.
More than ironic, this duality is telling. Trump’s arguments simultaneously posit the need for limits on presidential immigration authority and shine light on the absence of a principled answer to what those limits should be. If nothing else, when sentiments about constitutional power suddenly change when the president does, that should sound an alarm that political preferences are substituting for what the Constitution requires.
Trump’s claim to sweeping executive authority no doubt is emboldened by the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Trump v. Hawaii, which upheld his so-called travel ban against constitutional challenge. Emphasizing the breadth of presidential power in immigration matters, the five-justice majority declined to scrutinize Trump’s words and actions, as it might have in other regulatory contexts. Instead, the court explained, “[F]or more than a century, [it] has recognized that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”
The court’s extreme judicial deference in immigration traces to the Chinese Exclusion Cases, decided by the Supreme Court in the late 19th century. There, the court determined that the federal political branches had complete authority to exclude and expel immigrants on any basis, including race or nationality.
When those foundational immigration cases were decided, the court’s jurisprudence on constitutional rights was undeveloped, as were the nation’s social norms regarding discrimination. As that jurisprudence and our cultural understandings evolved over time, however, immigration law lagged behind.
The result is a modern-day immigration regime where the normal constitutional rules do not always apply. More concretely, it has allowed presidents across the political spectrum to wield governmental power that would be patently unconstitutional in other regulatory contexts.
The travel-ban case tested the currency of the court’s anachronistic immigration jurisprudence. By declining to modernize it, the court missed an opportunity to bring immigration law — and this president — in line with generally applicable constitutional limits. Now, with his recent directives, Trump is doubling-down on the idea of creating immigration law through executive fiat.
But make no mistake: The stakes transcend immigration law and our sitting president.
Lurking behind the controversies over DACA, “sanctuary cities,” asylum and citizenship, are a set of constitutional values on which those cases turn — from individual rights to separation of powers to state autonomy. The fact that these core concerns arise in situations with an immigration component should not give presidents a free pass on any of these constitutional dimensions. Otherwise, it becomes all too easy for presidents to invoke catchphrases such as “national security” or “alien invasion” to paper over our written Constitution.
Nor should questions about presidential power be confused or replaced with questions about whether we like or dislike a president’s policies. The Constitution was crafted to keep certain values safe from the political whims of any one institution of government — including the president. Constitutional structures do not grind to a halt when Congress does. If anything, congressional inaction is a telltale sign of a nation divided, not a justification for a president to go it alone.
Looking ahead, there is no reason to think future presidents will forfeit power once obtained. Indeed, Trump’s invocations of executive power are perhaps the extreme, but predictable, result of the steady accretion of presidential power over time. This one-way ratcheting of presidential power must be stopped by judicial and congressional intervention, or it will not be stopped at all.
It has become a cliché to invoke America’s status as a “nation of laws.” Less appreciated is that our laws reflect who we are and wish to be as a nation. No president should be able to unilaterally decide our national complexion. Any compromise on that point compromises our constitutional democracy.
Small opening of the very restrictive citizenship laws (common to all Gulf countries):
Non-Muslims could be granted the Kuwaiti citizenship if two proposals approved by the parliamentary legal and legislative committee is supported by the parliament and the government.
The proposals submitted separately by MP Safa Al Hashem and by MPs Ahmad Fadhl and Khalid Al Shatti called for amending the 1959 citizenship law to allow the granting the Kuwaiti citizenship to applicants who are not Muslim.
Current law
The law currently stipulates under Item 5 of Article 4 that the Kuwaiti nationality may be granted by decree upon the recommendation of the Minister of Interior to any person who is an original Muslim by birth, or that he has converted to Islam according to the prescribed rules and procedures. It also stipulates that a period of at least five years has passed since he embraced Islam before the grant of naturalisation.
“Nationality thus acquired is ipso facto lost and the Decree of naturalisation rendered void ab initio if the naturalised person expressly renounces Islam or if he behaves in such a manner as clearly indicates his intention to abandon Islam.
In any such case, the nationality of any dependent of the apostate who had acquired it upon the naturalisation of the apostate is also rendered void.”
Other requirements
The other four requirements are residing in Kuwait for at least 20 consecutive years or for at least 15 consecutive years if he is an Arab belonging to an Arab country, has lawful means of earning his living, is of good character and has not been convicted of an honour-related crime or of an honesty-related crime, has knowledge of the Arabic language and possesses qualifications or renders services needed in Kuwait.
The parliamentary committee had long opposed amending the law to drop the religion requirement, but endorsed it this time after three of its members had resigned.
However, the proposal, promoted as achieving fairness and equal chances for all, may not pass the parliament currently dominated by conservatives.
Challenging the current law
In December 2014, the late independent lawmaker Nabil Al Fadhl challenged the constitutionality of Article 4 in the Citizenship Law.
“This is a Christmas gift for our Christian brothers,” Al Fadhl, the father of Ahmad who submitted the proposal this time, said after filing his petition to the Constitutional Court, the highest court in the northern Arabian Gulf country.
Al Fadhl said that the condition was a constitutional and legal stigma.
“Those who added this condition to the Citizenship Law in 1981 are lawmakers who did not rise to the significance of their oath as they were sworn in as members of parliament,” he said.
“Such an article is a disgrace to the law and does not in any way reflect the values of the Kuwaiti people.”
The Muslim-only restriction was reportedly introduced in 1981 by MPs Ahmad Al Saadoon, Mohammad Al Marshad and Mohammad Al Rasheed.
Al Fadhl attributed his decision to seek an amendment to the Citizenship Law at the Constitutional Court and not at the parliament to his wish to avoid splitting conservative lawmakers.
“I wanted to avoid any form of embarrassment to the lawmakers and to keep away from differences in viewpoints in the parliament,” he said.
When in January 2014, MP Al Hashem suggested cancelling the condition that restricted naturalisation to Muslims, saying that it was not in line with the text and spirit of the constitution.
She was, however, opposed by several lawmakers who said that the focus should be on granting the Kuwaiti citizenship to the Muslim Bidoons, stateless people, living in Kuwait.
Al Fadhl died in December 2015 during a session of the parliament.
250 Kuwaiti Christians
The overwhelming majority of Kuwaiti citizens are Muslims.
Around 250 Kuwaitis are Christians who were granted the citizenship before the article restricting naturalisation to Muslims was introduced.
Will see whether Norway joins the other Nordics in allowing dual citizenship:
The Center- and Labour parties are scrambling to block looming passage of a new law that would finally remove a long-standing ban on dual citizenship in Norway. Trygve Slagsvold Vedum, the protectionist, anti-EU leader of the Center Party, is among those launching a last-ditch effort to prevent Norway from allowing dual citizenship, and thus falling in line with most of the rest of the world.
“In this case, children of diplomats and foreign students are more important for the government than women and children who are dumped abroad,” Vedum told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) over the weekend. Vedum, whose small party has always opposed dual citizenship, now claims dual citizenship will make it more difficult to bring children who’ve been kidnapped and taken to another country by a foreign parent back to Norway.
“That’s a very drastic and completely biased commentary from Vedum, who only shows that he hasn’t understood this (the dual citizenship) issue,” retorted Kristin Holm Jensen, a state secretary for the Conservative Party in the education ministry. She noted that many women who are subjected to forced marriages or whose children are kidnapped by a foreign spouse come from countries where Norway already has made exceptions that will allow dual citizenship.
“The Center Party’s opposition (to dual citizenship) won’t help them,” Jensen said. “We have many other measures to help protect them, both in Norway and through assistance from Norway’s embassies.” Children of parents from different countries, meanwhile, have long been granted citizenship in each and allowed to retain it at least until the age of 18.
Almost alone with current ban
Norway remains the only Nordic country that still has a general ban on dual citizenship, and one of the very few in Europe and elsewhere in the world. Momentum has been growing for years to end the ban, which is widely viewed as old-fashioned and isolationist in a global society where many people have moved internationally and have allegiances to both their country of birth and their country of residence.
In Norway, the ban has meant that thousands of long-term expatriates living in Norway have been denied the right to vote in national elections, because they’ve been unable to gain Norwegian citizenship unless they give up their citizenship from birth. Thousands of Norwegians who have moved abroad, meanwhile, have also been forced to give up their Norwegian citizenship if they’ve obtained citizenship in their country of residence, for example for job reasons.
The proposed law to finally allow dual citizenship in Norway has received majority support throughout its hearing process earlier this year. The government coalition thus sent the proposal to Parliament this autumn, even though it includes the immigration-skeptical Progress Party. Progress, however, now supports dual citizenship on the grounds it will make it easier for Norway to deport criminals or terror suspects who came to Norway from other countries but now only possess Norwegian citizenship. That citizenship can’t be revoked, but it could be if they’d been allowed to retain their original citizenship.
NRK reported that the dual citizenship proposal has sparked warnings from the Norwegian Bar Association, the police and the children’s ombud that it could have a negative effect in cases of forced marriage, kidnapping and cases of Norwegian citizens being held abroad against their will. Others claim, however, that the very fact they could no longer be stripped of their Norwegian citizenship offsets such risk.
While the Center Party has always opposed dual citizenship, it’s more surprising that the Labour Party is going along with arguments against it. Labour has long been an advocate of internationalism and multilateralism, and is currently led by former Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.
Debate due in December
Center and Labour are allied, however, in an attempt to seize government power away from the current Conservatives-led coalition. That likely helped Labour’s integration spokesperson Siri Gåsemyr Staalesen join forces with Vedum, also after two women from an organization that helps imigrant women fight social control and forced marriages sought their help. They fear dual citizenship’s consequences on women whose children have been taken back to their homelands against their will.
“It will nearly be impossible to get their children back if they (the children) have become citizens of the country to which they’ve been taken,” Laial Ayoub of the organization Nok (Enough) told NRK. The government, however, stresses that the children would no longer risk losing their Norwegian citizenship, and denies Vedum’s claims that removing the dual citizenship ban will hurt vulnerable groups.
The dual citizenship issue, which has faced lengthy delays in coming up in Parliament, is currently due to be debated in Parliament sometime in December.
Multicultural Meanderings 