Yakabuski | Le droit du sol en danger/Birthright citizenship

More commentary on birthright cit and birth tourism and the need for more accurate data [I estimated that about 50 percent of non-resident self-pay births were likely due to birth tourism, so about half of what Yakabuski cites. And if anyone has about $60,000, Statistics Canada could do an analysis of non-resident self-pay births by immigration category which would separate out those on visitor visas (largely birth tourists) from international students, temporary workers and asylum seekers:

…Selon un article de l’ancien haut fonctionnaire Andrew Griffith publié en janvier dans Options politiques, il y aurait eu 5219 naissances attribuées au tourisme obstétrique au Canada en 2023-2024, soit environ 1,5 % de toutes les naissances au pays. Toutefois, le gouvernement fédéral ne recueille de statistiques officielles ni sur le tourisme obstétrique ni sur les naissances chez les résidents temporaires.

Avant de changer nos lois pour éliminer un principe aussi fondamental que le droit du sol, nos législateurs devraient avoir la certitude qu’un véritable problème existe et, surtout, qu’il n’existe aucune autre façon de le régler. Pour l’instant, les conservateurs ne se fient que sur des données anecdotiques pour s’enligner sur le chemin trumpiste.


… According to an article by former senior official Andrew Griffith published in January in Political Options, there were 5219 births attributed to obstetric tourism in Canada in 2023-2024, or about 1.5% of all births in the country. However, the federal government does not collect official statistics on obstetric tourism or on births among temporary residents.

Before changing our laws to eliminate a principle as fundamental as the law of the soil, our legislators should be sure that a real problem exists and, above all, that there is no other way to solve it. For the moment, the Conservatives rely only on anecdotal data to align themselves on the Trump path.

Source: Chronique | Le droit du sol en danger

Urback: The Conservatives are right: Canada should end birthright citizenship

Nice to see my work cited and discussion of current and potential numbers:

…It’s difficult to get a complete picture of how many parents who are not citizens or permanent residents are giving birth. Using figures about women who “self-pay” for births at hospitals, Andrew Griffith at Policy Options calculated that tourism births – by which women travel to Canada specifically to give birth – increased to 5,219 in 2024, which is nearly back up to Canada’s prepandemic high. There may be some overlap in that number with the number of births by non-residents, such as temporary foreign workers and international students, since some of them will not be covered by provincial plans or direct-bill insurance from their schools. 

Those who are covered, however, are outside of that calculation. An analysis of hospital deliveries from the early 2010s to 2017 found that approximately 6,000 births annually were by non-permanent residents; “more specifically, around 4,000 births were by temporary foreign workers, more than 1,000 by international students, and around 1,000 by refugee claimants and TR permit holders, annually.”

In the last quarter of 2017, there were nearly 972,000 non-permanent residents living in Canada. By the last quarter of 2024, that number had ballooned to more than 3.1 million. If a comparable proportion of those residents have babies while in Canada, it will mean thousands more children with citizenship whose parents may or may not be entitled to stay in the country, but whose citizenship will absolutely complicate immigration decisions. …

Source: The Conservatives are right: Canada should end birthright citizenship

Chris Selley: ‘Birthright citizenship’ is an outdated concept

More commentary on birthright citizenship:

…The Liberals say they’re not interested in changing the law — though they didn’t freak out and call everyone racist for even raising the subject, as you might expect them to. (Is it possible they can … learn?) And it’s difficult to imagine this issue ever floating to the top of the pile, even with a Conservative government in power.

But in the absence of legislative action, as with so many files, we could commit to start collecting relevant data about the birth tourism and non-resident birth phenomenon.

Statistics Canada reports that in 2024, 1,610 people gave birth in Canada who did not reside here. That’s the number usually quoted in reference to “birth tourism” — but does it include people on temporary visas, like students and temporary foreign workers? Those aren’t necessarily abuses of any system; people do shag, regardless of their immigration status, and sometimes those people do get pregnant.

When I inquired of Statistics Canada about this, I got an intensely Canadian answer. “The mother’s residency status is typically determined based on the information she provides on the birth registration form. However, the specific requirements and procedures may vary by jurisdiction,” a spokesperson explained. “Since this is self-reported, we can’t tell from the data whether someone is a temporary resident or not.”

Could we at least do better than that? Is that too much to ask — to know the scope of the problem that we’re probably not going to solve?

Source: Chris Selley: ‘Birthright citizenship’ is an outdated concept

Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025): Interesting data requirement addition

Complete text of revised bill. Only part that struck my interest that had not been reported previously was the data provision:

26.1 (1) Within three months after the end of each fiscal year, the Minister must prepare a report for the previous year that sets out the number of persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), their countries of citizenship other than Canada, if any, their most recent country of residence and the provisions of this Act under which they are citizens.

(2) The Minister must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which that House is sitting after the report is completed.”

Source: Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)

As concern about immigration grows, Conservative MP calls for an end to birthright citizenship

Getting some political attention, suspect its purpose given unlikely that the government will propose a bill to address birth tourism (both former ministers Fraser and Miller quoted but not Diab) and that the Bloc opposes, at least for the moment, any such initiative. Hope to have my annual update on CIHI numbers for non-resident births, which will be timely given Rempel-Garner’s raising the issue:

A Conservative MP’s unsuccessful push this week to end birthright citizenship is among a suite of stricter measures the party is proposing as concern about immigration grows for Canadians.

Calgary MP Michelle Rempel Garner made the pitch at a parliamentary committee meeting Tuesday night while proposing an amendment to the government’s “lost Canadians” bill, which aims to clarify rules for when Canadian citizens born abroad can pass along citizenship to their children.

Rempel Garner argued that with a rise in the number of non-permanent residents in Canada, including international students, people on work visas or asylum-seekers, citizenship should be granted only to people born in Canada with at least one parent who is a citizen or permanent resident. …

Source: As concern about immigration grows, Conservative MP calls for an end to birthright citizenship

C-3: Canadian residency, language provisions added to bill on citizenship by descent

The irony, the Bloc casting the deciding vote to strengthen the requirements for citizenship by descent, including my point of the need for the residency requirement of 1,095 days to be met within a five-year period. No doubt the language and security requirements will be challenged at some point in the courts:

A parliamentary committee has passed changes to the citizenship bill to limit the passage of citizenship by descent to mirror what’s typically required of immigrants to become Canadian citizens.

On Tuesday, the standing committee on citizenship and immigration inserted into Bill C-3 language and knowledge requirements, as well as security checks for foreign-born descendants of Canadian parents who were also born abroad. 

To inherit Canadian citizenship by descent, those between 18 and 55 years old would need to have an “adequate” knowledge in English or French, and of the responsibilities and privileges of being a citizen. All adults would also be required to undergo security checks to determine if they would be inadmissible. 

Instead of the proposed cumulative 1,095-day physical residency required, a foreign-born Canadian citizen would need to have spent those number of days inside Canada in the five consecutive years before the birth of their child abroad in order to pass on their citizenship. 

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government tabled Bill C-3 in June, which is meant to comply with a court order that ruled the current two-generation cut-off provision of the Citizenship Act is unconstitutional because it limits the automatic passage of citizenship to the first generation of Canadians who were born outside Canada. 

The minority Liberal government must pass and implement the bill by Nov. 20 to make the law compliant with the Constitution’s Charter of Rights.

With the Liberals and Conservatives each holding four votes on the committee, Bloc Québécois MP Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean) held the balance of power in passing the amendments put forward by the Conservative opposition.

The MP said he didn’t see how these amendments on citizenship by descent would be deemed unconstitutional when the same rules are applied to naturalized Canadians.

“Everybody should be happy,” said Brunelle-Duceppe. “Am I wrong?” 

However, Uyen Hoang, a director general of the Immigration Department’s citizenship branch, said there’s a distinction between citizenship by descent and the naturalization process.

“These people become citizens at the moment of their birth, automatically by operation of law,” Hoang told the committee when asked for her opinion on the amendments. “The bill is to restore citizenship to lost Canadians. And with this type of requirement, we could potentially create another cohort of lost Canadians.” 

The committee will report Bill C-3 as amended to the House of Commons for debate before a final vote at third reading.

Source: Canadian residency, language provisions added to bill on citizenship by descent

Rempel-Garner: Canada must now place restrictions on birthright #citizenship. Here’s why.

Interesting that the Conservatives are raising birth tourism aspects of citizenship as part of their critique of Bill C-3)

…Today, there are millions of people living in Canada on temporary visas, comprising an astonishing 7%+ of the country’s population – a situation never before seen in Canadian history. Another estimated 500,000 undocumented persons are living in Canada too, as well as 300,000 people in the asylum claim queue (many with bogus claims). Many of the millions of temporary residents are set to have their visas expire, or have already expired.

In this context, it’s not much of a stretch to foresee that Canada’s practice of having no restrictions on jus soli citizenship acquisition is likely to be abused by people seeking to stay in the country after their visa expires or after a bogus asylum claim is found to be invalid. This is because while having a child on Canadian soil theoretically grants no immediate stay rights to parents who are temporary residents, in practice, court rulings, a deeply broken asylum system, protracted appeals, and sluggish deportationsfunctionally often allow them to remain.

Recent videos on social media advertising this loophole suggest this may be the case. The number of people born in Canada to temporary or undocumented residents is not publicly tracked, but recent policies by Canadian hospitals charging temporary residents for giving birth suggest it’s a problem. And birth tourism, the practice of non-residents (i.e. those on visitor visas) travelling to Canada to have their child on Canadian soil so that they can obtain citizenship, is also back on the rise. When former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper left office in 2015, birth tourism levels were 590% lower than today. Birth tourism is now at its highest levels ever, both in terms of absolute levels and percentages. These types of population growth are not typically accounted for in immigration levels planning….

Source: Canada must now place restrictions on birthright citizenship. Here’s why.

C-3 Citizenship: My Submission Arguing for the need for a time limit

Most Canadians favour scaling back immigration and temporary resident numbers, poll shows 

Not surprising given coverage over some of the issues:

…Almost three-quarters of Canadians favour reducing the number of new immigrants coming here, while two-thirds support the government’s plan to cut the number of temporary residents, a new poll shows.

The Nanos poll for The Globe and Mail found that Canadians are more than twice as likely to support reducing the number of new immigrants coming to Canada, compared with those who oppose a cut.

More than three in five Canadians support or somewhat support the government reducing its targets for temporary residents until 2027, as set out in its levels plan last year, the poll also found. 

The new survey demonstrates a steady hardening of views on immigration in the past few years. In 2023, 53 per cent of Canadians surveyed in a Nanos poll for The Globe said they wanted the federal government to accept fewer immigrants than it was planning that year. 

The 2023 poll found a rise of almost 20 percentage points over six months earlier in the number of Canadians who thought this country should accept fewer immigrants than Ottawa’s 2023 target of 465,000 permanent residents. 

The most recent survey of 1,028 Canadians, conducted between Aug. 30 and Sept. 3, showed support for cuts in numbers of newcomers across all age groups and regions of Canada. 

“What is clear from the research is that a comfortable majority of Canadians are good with reducing the number of new immigrants and new temporary residents,” said Nik Nanos, chief data scientist and founder of Nanos Research….

Source: Most Canadians favour scaling back immigration and temporary resident numbers, poll shows

33 million voters have been run through a Trump administration citizenship check

Valid concerns:

Tens of millions of voters have had their citizenship status and other information checked using a revamped tool offered by the Trump administration, even as many states — led by both Democrats and Republicans — are refusing or hesitating to use it because of outstanding questions about the system.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) says election officials have used the tool to check the information of more than 33 million voters — a striking portion of the American public, considering little information has been made public about the tool’s accuracy or data security.

The latest update to the system, known as SAVE, took effect Aug. 15 and allows election officials to use just the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers — along with names and dates of birth — to check if the voters are U.S. citizens, or if they have died.

Source: 33 million voters have been run through a Trump administration citizenship check