Semowo: It’s Black History Month. Let’s Move Inclusion Beyond Visibility

2025/02/10 Leave a comment

Nice to see academics interested in citizenship and the various study guides over the year that overall indicate progress. However, policy makers have to decide how much to include in a guide, how much detail on particular groups and history, keeping in mind the need for simple language, the audience of new Canadians and related needs of being concise.

As well as the balance between portraying a positive image of Canada to those becoming citizens while acknowledging less positive historical and current issues.

Suspect that many groups could make similar critiques without acknowledging the need for balance and perspective.

Unclear that the revised guide, under preparation under at least four IRCC Liberal ministers would equally meet Semowo’s criteria for inclusion. And of course, there is no formal citizenship education under the settlement program, an ongoing gap:

A Canada where Blackness was overlooked

Since 1947, the federal government has published citizenship study guides to help new immigrants prepare for citizenship tests.

These guides are more than bureaucratic texts; they frame Canada’s shared identity and values for newcomers. Yet for much of the 20th century, they presented a Canada relatively devoid of Blackness.

Canada’s first citizenship study guide failed to mention Black Canadians at all. Instead, the guide celebrated British and French heritage while paying scant attention to Indigenous Peoples and other racialized communities.

Subsequent guides beginning in 1963 included either an image, text or both describing people of African descent. However, their inclusion was sparse and narrowly focused, signalling that Blackness is peripheral to Canadian identity.

The 1995 study guide entitled A Look at Canada briefly acknowledged Black Loyalists but overlooked their struggles in Nova Scotia, where many were denied the land they were promised.

Africville, a Black community razed in the 1960s, was notably absent. Indeed, many Canadians remain unaware of Africville or the civil rights activist Viola Desmond, whose defiance against segregation in 1946 is often overshadowed by more well-known American figures, such as Rosa Parks.

This lack of visibility in official narratives not only disconnects Black Canadians from their own history but also perpetuates the myth that systemic anti-Black racism is solely a U.S. problem.

A recent study guide from 2009 titled Discover Canada presented a few notable figures, such as the athlete Marjorie Turner-Bailey, abolitionist publisher Mary Ann Shadd Cary and Victoria Cross recipient able seaman William Hall.

These provide valuable recognition of Black Canadians’ historical presence and struggles.

However, their inclusion follows a pattern of narrow representation, where Black history is framed primarily through individual achievements rather than part of a broader discussion on systemic barriers.

While the guide, a version of which is still in use today, acknowledged slavery, abolition and Black migration, it does not deeply engage with ongoing racial inequities in Canada, such as economic disparities and segregation. This tokenization mirrors patterns in real life.

Black Canadians are often called upon to represent diversity in workplaces or public events, but these gestures rarely challenge the structures that perpetuate inequality.

Similarly, the citizenship study guides’ brief mentions of Black Canadians create the impression that inclusion has been achieved, leaving deeper systemic issues unacknowledged and unaddressed. 2009’s Discover Canada praised the bravery of Black soldiers in both World Wars yet omitted the fact that many were initially denied the opportunity to serve in the military.

Minimalization also occurs when Blackness is reduced to narratives of struggle. While it is vital to honour the fight against slavery and segregation, the guides rarely highlight Black joy and innovation.

This framing not only flattens the complexity of Black experiences but also risks perpetuating stereotypes that limit how Black Canadians are perceived.

‘Selective inclusion’

One of the most revealing insights from the citizenship guides is how they reflect selective inclusion. In 2009’s Discover Canada, for instance, Canadian multiculturalism is celebrated as a cornerstone of national identity.

Yet the guide devotes far more space to Canadians of European descent, reinforcing a hierarchy of who is most celebrated in the national story.

This reflects a broader reality: Black Canadians are often welcomed in limited contexts, such as sports and entertainment, while facing systemic exclusion in areas like politics, corporate leadership and academia. For example, while Canada has celebrated athletes like Donovan Bailey and acclaimed writers like Esi Edugyan, Black representation in federal politics remains disproportionately low.

These issues — of selective inclusion and systemic exclusion — are especially important to highlight now because the dismantling of DEI policies in the U.S. can have a chilling effect across North America: conversations about systemic racism can be labelled as divisive, and efforts to address historical exclusions may be dismissed as unnecessary.

If Canada is to uphold its commitment to diversity, it must critically examine how its own narratives have shaped belonging.

Here in Canada, the federal Conservative Party leaders have been attacking diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Within progressive circles, our DEI efforts often face criticism — that is, more about optics than meaningful change.

‘Inclusion must go beyond visibility’

As we reflect on Black History Month, our citizenship study guides offer an important lesson: inclusion must go beyond visibility.

It is not enough to name a few figures or reference historic injustices without addressing the reality of anti-Black racism in Canada today — a fact newcomers to Canada not only deserve, but need, to know.

A meaningful way forward would be to integrate Black history more fully into the newcomer education curriculum, ensuring that stories like Africville and Viola Desmond’s trial are seen as essential parts of Canadian history, not as footnotes.

Black History Month is also a reminder that diversity is not just about celebrating achievements but about creating systems that allow all Canadians to thrive.

Citizenship, in its fullest sense, means belonging—not just in the abstract but in the lived experience of equity, recognition and opportunity.

The evolution of the citizenship guides shows progress but also highlights how much work remains.

As we move forward, we must commit to telling the whole story of Canada — a story where Blackness is not erased, tokenized or selectively included, but embraced as integral to the fabric of this nation

Source: It’s Black History Month. Let’s Move Inclusion Beyond Visibility

Filed under Citizenship, Discover Canada Tagged with , ,

As birth tourism rises again, will Trump’s citizenship moves send more Canada’s way?

2025/02/04 Leave a comment

Some good reporting on the local birth tourism “industry” and their expectations regarding possible increased business resulting from Trump threats (my analysis referenced, would be nice to see some reporting from the GTA, given the number of hospitals with significant portions of non-resident self-pay births).

For those who worry that any measures might affect the vulnerable, the cost for birth tourism “packages” for Chinese nationals is, according the operators cited, in the order of $100,000:

Vancouver-based birth tourism operator Liga Lin says her phone has been buzzing with inquiries from expectant mothers since U.S. President Donald Trump moved to end American birthright citizenship.

Lin’s business, New Joy Postpartum Care, arranges accommodation and services for non-resident women — mostly from mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong — who want to give birth in Canada, granting their children automatic citizenship rights.

The industry also exists in the U.S., but Trump’s executive order seeking to end the right to citizenship at birth on American soil has thrown it into disarray, even as the measure was blocked by a U.S. district court judge who called it “blatantly unconstitutional.”

Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu, known in English as RedNote, has numerous discussions among people in China about whether they should stick to their plan to give birth in the U.S. or switch to other countries with birthright citizenship, such as Canada.

Lin — whose packages can cost up to about $100,000 including housing, a nanny, a housekeeper and massages, recalled a phone call from a Chinese woman already in a U.S. “birth house,” panicking over Trump’s announcement.

“She is very worried, and she asked me if there is any similar move going on in Canada. She wanted to come to Canada instead,” Lin said in an interview in Mandarin.

Birth tourism in Canada slumped during the COVID-19 pandemic, but Lin and other British Columbia operators say inquiries from potential birth tourists are spiking since Trump’s election last year, and his recent executive order.

You Wu has run a “maternity care agency” in the Metro Vancouver city of Richmond, B.C., since 2013.

“My company has experienced an increase in consultation requests after Trump came into power. The most noticeable change is many clients deciding to switch from the U.S. to Vancouver,” Wu said in Mandarin.

She said there was a sense of urgency, compared with other times when potential clients would question her closely and hesitate to sign contracts.

“It’s fantastic news for people who work in this industry in Vancouver,” Wu said of the shift. 

Andrew Griffith is a former director-general of the Department Citizenship and Immigration, who has tracked the ups and downs of the birth tourism industry in Canada.

He said Trump’s executive order would require a constitutional amendment to stand, but it had already created uncertainty and panic among would-be U.S. birth tourists. 

“It’ll make it eventually to the Supreme Court, but in the meantime, there’ll be lots of chaos, lots of worries,” said Griffith.

He has released data showing the number of birth tourists to Canada “declined dramatically” during COVID-19 due to travel restrictions, dropping by 50 per cent. 

But he said births to non-residents are now back near pre-pandemic levels, jumping last year by 46 per cent to an estimated 5,219. 

That is only about 1.5 per cent of all births in Canada, although critics of birth tourism point to the potential burden on hospitals where the practice is most common.

“The number of births is quite small, but it does have an effect on the perception of fairness,” said Griffith.

Dr. Jon Barrett, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at McMaster University, published an opinion letter in the Journal of Obstetrics and Genaecology Canada in 2023, saying Canadian hospitals and physicians should have “absolutely zero tolerance” for birth tourism, and decline to accept these patients into care, unless it was urgent.

Doctors, he said, “should unite in a firm stand against birth tourism”, which put hospitals at risk of “significant shortfalls” if a birth went wrong, and birth tourists at risk of being “fleeced by unethical individuals.”

Richmond was once the “epicentre” of birth tourism in Canada, said Griffith. Data provided by Vancouver Coastal Health shows that in the 2018 fiscal year, more than 23 per cent of all babies born at Richmond Hospital had non-resident parents. 

But the health authority said “the number of non-resident births at Richmond Hospital for the past few years is a fraction of what it was 10 years ago,” and last fiscal year, the percentage of births that were to non-resident parents was 6.9 per cent.

Griffith said it’s unclear if Trump’s positions would have an impact on birth tourism in Canada, but discussions in the U.S. would pressure Canada to “revisit the need for curbs on birth tourism.”

“Canada and the U.S., in one sense, are the preferred destinations for people who would want to achieve citizenship,” said Griffith. 

“Whether a Canadian political party will pick up the issue like the Conservatives did in 2012 remains to be seen.”

Longtime immigration consultant Peter Peng was uncertain whether there would be an “overwhelming” influx of birth tourists in Canada. “If you ask me, if we will see a big trend this time, my answer is soft Yes, not a solid one,” he said in Mandarin.

And while Richmond-based birth tourism operator Wenshi Peng said inquiries had jumped three or four times since Trump’s executive order, this had not yet been converted to an increase in clients, he said.

Peng said he didn’t think birth tourists, who pay full price for medical services, burden Canada’s health system

“For mothers who don’t have Canadian citizenships to give births here, they usually need to pay (the hospital) at least $13,000, and the price usually doubles if they run into any trouble,” Peng said in Mandarin.

“I don’t think they have taken up any local health care resources.”

Lin said that the birth tourism industry in the United States was more established than in Canada but both had appeal for someone seeking foreign citizenship for their child.

America, she said, is known for elite universities, while Canada was known for safe campus environments and its social benefits.

“Years ago, many moms who worked at high-tech firms in Taiwan used to travel to the U.S. in groups to give birth, but now they will come here instead,” said Lin. 

She said that as a mother of two, she empathized with her clients as they navigated a foreign country to give birth.

Birth tourists just want a better future for their children, she said. 

“They are under stress, and I always try my best to comfort them,” said Lin.

“For parents who choose to give birth here, they are worried that ten years later, it will be more difficult for their children to pursue studies or even immigrate (due to policy changes). The costs at that time will be way higher than $100,000, because of inflation.”

Source: As birth tourism rises again, will Trump’s citizenship moves send more Canada’s way?

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

Citizenship by Birthright? By Bloodline? Migration Is Complicating Both.

2025/02/03 Leave a comment

Excerpt from a longer informative article:

…Birthright in a Modern Age?

Some critics say much the same about unconditional birthright citizenship.

About 20 percent of countries use it, most in North and South America. The United States and Canada inherited the law from Britain, but birthright citizenship also fulfilled an important role in the newly independent countries as a way to constitute a nation.

Like those who favor bloodline citizenship, birthright advocates say it promotes social cohesion, but for a different reason — because no child is left out.

In the United States, the 14th Amendment allowed men and women of African descent to become citizens, and millions of children of Irish, German and other European immigrants became citizens as well. 

But unconditional birthright citizenship remains an exception.

“In a world of massive migration and irregular migration, unconditional ius soli is an anachronism,” said Christian Joppke, a professor of sociology at the University of Bern.

Still, some argue that the Trump’ administration is not setting out to modernize a law but instead is trying to redefine the nation itself.

“It rejects the idea of America as a nation of immigrants,” said Hiroshi Motomura, an immigration and citizenship expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. 

Even under the current rules in the United States, birthright citizenship is not absolute. They exclude, for instance, the children of diplomats born in the United States. And most children of American citizens born abroad maintain an automatic right to American citizenship — in effect bloodline citizenry.

Citizenship by descent “is a really good way to connect with people who live outside the borders of a state,” said Mr. Vink. “But if you want to ensure you are also being inclusive within the borders of a state, you have to also have territorial birthright.”

Otherwise, he said, countries would have millions in their population who are not citizens.

“In a democracy,” he said, “that is not a good principle.”

Source: Citizenship by Birthright? By Bloodline? Migration Is Complicating Both.

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Audit shows extent of Arizona’s problems with tracking voter citizenship

2025/02/03 Leave a comment

Case study:

The report laid out for the first time the extent of the state’s problem with tracking voter citizenship. And it confirmed, as Votebeat found in October, that it didn’t simply stem from a glitch in the coding of the system, as officials initially announced.

Hobbs ordered the comprehensive review of state policies in September after officials found that a problem with the system allowed more than 200,000 voters to be registered to vote full ballots, even though they had never been asked to provide proof of citizenship. In Arizona, only people who have provided citizenship proof can vote in state and local elections.

Hobbs hired two former recorders, Patty Hansen of Coconino County and Robyn Stallworth-Pouquette of Yuma County, to review MVD policies and practices relevant to voter registration. The two reported their findings to the MVD, which compiled the report.

The report included three main findings.

First, the report found a loophole in state law involving people born in American Samoa and Swains Islands who have not become naturalized citizens. Those people are considered U.S. nationals, and can get a U.S. passport, but they are not citizens with full rights.

But Arizona accepts U.S. passports as proof of citizenship for voting, the audit found, so this loophole improperly makes it possible for U.S. nationals to register to vote. The report indicates that there is no way of knowing if any nationals registered to vote using a passport, but emphasizes that this probably happened rarely — if at all — because registrants also must attest to their citizenship under penalty of perjury.

Fixing the loophole would require a change to state law to ensure that proper documentation is used that verifies citizenship for U.S. nationals.

A second finding was that the Secretary of State’s Office and Motor Vehicle Division must communicate better. The secretary’s office maintains the voter registration database for 13 of 15 counties. When county recorders check the citizenship status of a new registrant, they use that system to query Motor Vehicle Division information.

The two agencies have already begun meeting more frequently, and, under a recommendation from Hansen and Stallworth-Pouquette, election officials will begin receiving training when they receive their election officer certification on how the MVD system functions, the report states.

“Finding regular time to share information and build relationships between the MVD and election officials will help eliminate issues in the future,” the report states.

The last recommendation from the former recorders involves ensuring that inactive MVD records have updated citizenship statuses. Those are for residents whose licenses are expired or canceled. When the secretary’s office and Motor Vehicle Division attempted to find all voters that might have inaccurate citizenship information, they did not check these records.

Report outlines MVD policy problems

County recorders rely heavily on driver’s license information to check citizenship status when someone tries to register to vote. Only driver’s licenses issued after October 1996 count as proof of citizenship, since that’s when the state started collecting citizenship information for normal driver’s licenses.

But the report explained that since 2020, when the MVD updated its driver’s license database, the MVD has classified any resident with a driver’s license issued before October 1996 as a citizen, even though the state hadn’t asked for documentation. That means, if a county recorder looked up their information, those drivers would be classified as citizens, even though there was no proof on record.

But even before 2020 — all the way back to 2007 — there was another problem causing recorders to get inaccurate information about citizenship during these checks. That’s because the secretary’s system was set up to gather just the issuance date of the driver’s license as an indicator of citizenship verification. That issuance date in the records was often incorrect — if the voter had renewed or gotten a duplicate license after 1996, it would show the most recent issuance date. That signaled to the recorders that the voter had provided citizenship proof, even if they hadn’t.

The voter registration system was supposed to provide further information on each license, such as each subsequent issuance date, but because of an error in the system, it did not, according to the report.

Also, the assumption that the MVD was collecting citizenship information when someone renewed their license proved to be not true. MVD told Votebeat in October that it changed that policy.

State officials have now updated state databases to ensure county officials receive accurate information about resident’s citizenship. But Hobbs wanted to look further to see if there were other improvements needed.

County recorders were recently sent the final list of voters affected by the problem. With local elections approaching in some counties, recorders will need to quickly notify the affected voters that they are required to provide proof of citizenship before voting.

Source: Audit shows extent of Arizona’s problems with tracking voter citizenship

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Attention: Birth Tourism Notice [Humber River Health]

2025/01/31 Leave a comment

Wonder whether other hospitals have similar language (Humber had the highest percentage of non-resident self-pay births 2023-24):

Please be advised that while Humber River Health provides a High Quality full service Obstetrical Program, we do not support birth tourism.

We are not affiliated, associated, or in any way officially connected with CanadaMama Consulting  or any other birth tourism agency – despite any social media or website advertising they may choose to produce.

We urge all patients and families to exercise caution and ensure proper due diligence before entering into an agreement with third party organizations offering birth tourism.

Should you have any questions about the programs or services offered at Humber River Health or our current partnerships, please contact our Patients Relations Representative directly at (416) 242-1000.

Non-OHIP Rates for Uninsured Patients

Thank you for choosing Humber River Health as the place to have your baby.  

Your care provider (physician or midwife) will review the finance process with you during your prenatal visits.  

Effective November 13, 2023, the total charge for non-OHIP patients planning to deliver at Humber is $10,028 for the delivery. However, the cost of the hospital stay is subject to change and can only be confirmed on the delivery day and specific care needs. Non-OHIP birthing fees apply to gestational surrogacy whereby any parties of the surrogacy arrangement are from of out of country (even if some parties have OHIP).  Fee details need to be discussed with Cashier’s Office and payment made prior to the hospital delivery.

We ask that patients pay the full fees ten (10 days) prior to their hospital delivery.  Once payment is made, an official receipt will be provided by Cashier Office.  You will present this official receipt to the Birthing Unit Triage desk at time of registration. 

You can make the payment by cash, debit or credit card in person at the Cashier Office located at Level 1 room 1e1006 (east of Tim Horton’s near Emergency Department Fast Track Zone) of Humber River Health Hospital at 1235 Wilson Avenue.  A copy of your receipt will be issued to you….

Source: Attention: Birth Tourism Notice

Filed under Birth Tourism, Citizenship Tagged with

Matthews: Can we at least put a stop to ‘birth tourism’ (USA)?

2025/01/31 Leave a comment

Some useful data in the commentary:

President Trump ignited a flurry of activity with his executive order attempting to stop “birthright citizenship” — the constitutional provision that all children born on U.S. soil (including the territories) automatically become U.S. citizens. Based on the first judge to rule on Trump’s EO, it appears the administration faces an uphill battle in the courts. But whatever the courts decide on birthright citizenship, Americans should at least be able to agree that the practice of “birth tourism” is an abuse of the system and should be stopped.

Birth tourism is when pregnant women from other countries enter the United States for the purpose of having their child, who under the 14th Amendment automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, usually returning home thereafter.

For example, the health policy news site Fierce Healthcare wrote in 2009, “Of late, a growing number of well-to-do Mexican mothers have been coming to the U.S. to have their babies, who automatically get American citizenship since they were born on U.S. soil.” One Arizona medical facility marketed “a ‘birth package’ offering cutting edge technology, cozy settings and the chance for mothers to grant their babies American citizenship.” The facility even posted its (2009) prices: $2,300 for a vaginal birth and $4,600 for a c-section.

While Mexican women may have been the primary offenders in the past, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reported in 2020 that the list of countries has expanded to China, Taiwan, Korea, Nigeria, Turkey, Russia and Brazil. It adds that birth tourism has grown dramatically in some of the U.S. territories, where Chinese citizens can easily obtain visas to visit.

A senior policy director at Georgetown Law’s O’Neill Institute wrote in 2018, “Women from foreign countries, mainly China and Russia, are paying tens of thousands of dollars to temporarily relocate to the U.S. during their pregnancy in order to give birth in the U.S. and thereby guarantee U.S. citizenship for their child.”

The Wall Street Journal adds, “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.”

The federal government tried to limit birth tourism during the first Trump administration. The U.S. Department of State announced in January of 2020, “[T]he Department is amending its B nonimmigrant visa regulation to address birth tourism. Under this amended regulation, U.S. consular officers overseas will deny any B visa application from an applicant whom the consular officer has reason to believe is traveling for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for their child.”

It’s unclear how strictly this order has been enforced, especially given President Biden’s lax approach to immigration. But Trump wants to clamp down on the practice again by tightening the criteria to qualify for a tourist visa, the Journal reports.

How many births are we talking about? In 2020 the CIS estimated “that birth tourism results in 33,000 births to women on tourist visas annually.” While that’s a small percentage of the estimated 4.4 million child-citizens born to illegal immigrants, according to the Pew Research Center, it’s still a significant number.

To be sure, there are some key differences between birth tourism and those residing in the U.S. illegally who take advantage of birthright citizenship. Women engaging in birth tourism may be from upper-income families who enter the U.S. or its territories legally on a visa. And those returning with their child to their home country are unlikely to become a drain on taxpayers by signing up for various benefits available to children.

Then why do these women go to the trouble? Apparently, the hope is since their child is a U.S. citizen, they would receive preferential treatment in the future if or when they seek to move to the U.S. But even if one can sympathize with their goal, birth tourism is a flagrant abuse of the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision.

The courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, will determine the merits of Trump’s executive order, but most legal scholars think ending birthright citizenship will take either legislation or a constitutional amendment.

But even if the courts uphold the 14th Amendment’s long-accepted meaning of birthright citizenship, that may not extend to birth tourism.

The Supreme Court permits exceptions and limitations to many of our constitutional rights. You have a Second Amendment right to own a gun. But the courts allow certain venues — e.g., government buildings, schools, commercial airplanes and sports facilities  — to prohibit bringing a gun on the premises.

The best solution is for Congress and the Trump administration to pass comprehensive immigration reform, which could include any limitations or restrictions Congress wants imposed on birthright citizenship. Unfortunately, comprehensive reform is unlikely until Republicans believe they have regained control of the borders. And that may take a while.

Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of “On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.” 

Source: Can we at least put a stop to ‘birth tourism’?

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

Birth tourism rebounds close to pre-pandemic levels in B.C. as Trump takes action in U.S.

2025/01/31 Leave a comment

After falling precipitously during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of births in B.C. from non-residents rebounded significantly in 2024, suggesting a resurrection of the birth tourism cottage industry, says immigration analyst Andrew Griffith.

And, said Griffith, the newly released health data, comes as U.S. President Donald Trump vows — not without controversy — to curb the practice south of the border, raising questions about a likewise response here in Canada.

“The effect on Canada of Trump’s executive order prohibiting birth tourism is unclear but may result in an incoming Conservative government to re-examine the issue,” said Griffith.

The former director general for the Citizenship and Multiculturalism branch of Citizenship and Immigration Canada released this week, via Policy Options, new annual figures on non-resident births across Canada showing 5,219 such births in 2023-24.

That is nearly as many as the record 5,698 seen in 2019-20 and more than double the short-term low of 2,245 experienced in 2021-22.

Between April 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020, 868 non-residents of Canada, excluding temporary foreign workers, refugees and international students, paid to give birth in B.C. hospitals alone.

Last year 513 such births occurred in B.C., up from an average of 152 during the two pandemic-impacted years. B.C. provides public health care (Medical Service Plan) to international students, temporary foreign workers and refugees, who do not factor into the data.

Unique to B.C. was the birth tourism industry in Richmond, as 24 per cent of all births there in 2019-20 were to non-residents on account of a burgeoning birth tourism cottage industry, such as birthing hotels run out of homes for pregnant Chinese nationals on tourist visas.

But that phenomenon appears to have disappeared.

“The decline in visitor visas granted to Chinese nationals is reflected in British Columbia’s Richmond Hospital, once the epicentre of birth tourism, declining from 24 per cent pre-pandemic and only recovered partially to sevent percent in 2023-24,” said Griffith.

Last year the top B.C. hospitals for such births were Richmond (102), Surrey Memorial (99), St.Paul’s/Mount Saint Joseph (97) and Children’s (85).

At issue is the fact birth tourism has raised ethical and practical questions around delivery of health-care services for Canadian women.

Source: Birth tourism rebounds close to pre-pandemic levels in B.C. as Trump takes action in U.S.

Filed under Birth Tourism, Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

Galston | Trump’s Attack on Birthright Citizenship

2025/01/30 Leave a comment

Good informative commentary:

James C. Ho, the son of immigrants from Taiwan and a naturalized U.S. citizen, received a juris doctor with high honors in 1999 from the University of Chicago Law School, where he joined the Federalist Society. He went on to work in the private sector, in the Justice Department and as a legal adviser to subcommittees of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Between 2005-06, he clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. In 2008 he became solicitor general of Texas, succeeding Ted Cruz, who became one of his strongest supporters in the U.S. Senate. 

In October 2017, President Trump nominated Mr. Ho to fill a seat on the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans. The Senate confirmed Mr. Ho two months later. In late 2020, Mr. Trump included Judge Ho on a list of potential Supreme Court nominees, where he reportedly remains today.

Judge Ho is a staunch cultural conservative. He supports an expansive understanding of religious liberty and in 2022 publicly pledged not to hire law clerks from Yale Law School, charging that the school not only tolerates but actively practices cancel culture. He vigorously opposes illegal immigration, arguing that a country that can’t control its borders isn’t fully sovereign. 

But Judge Ho is also the author of a 2006 legal article that strongly argued in favor of birthright citizenship, including for the children of illegal immigrants. In support of his conclusion, he cited the text and history of the 14th Amendment as well as the key cases—U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Plyler v. Doe (1982)—in which the Supreme Court has interpreted its application. In Plyler, he noted, all nine justices endorsed the proposition that illegal immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. This matters because the 14th Amendment establishes being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. as the threshold qualification for children born in the U.S. to be citizens at birth. Mr. Ho ended his legal paper by dubbing efforts to eliminate birthright citizenship “Dred Scott II.”

In October 2017, President Trump nominated Mr. Ho to fill a seat on the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans. The Senate confirmed Mr. Ho two months later. In late 2020, Mr. Trump included Judge Ho on a list of potential Supreme Court nominees, where he reportedly remains today.

Judge Ho is a staunch cultural conservative. He supports an expansive understanding of religious liberty and in 2022 publicly pledged not to hire law clerks from Yale Law School, charging that the school not only tolerates but actively practices cancel culture. He vigorously opposes illegal immigration, arguing that a country that can’t control its borders isn’t fully sovereign. 

But Judge Ho is also the author of a 2006 legal article that strongly argued in favor of birthright citizenship, including for the children of illegal immigrants. In support of his conclusion, he cited the text and history of the 14th Amendment as well as the key cases—U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Plyler v. Doe (1982)—in which the Supreme Court has interpreted its application. In Plyler, he noted, all nine justices endorsed the proposition that illegal immigrants are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. This matters because the 14th Amendment establishes being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. as the threshold qualification for children born in the U.S. to be citizens at birth. Mr. Ho ended his legal paper by dubbing efforts to eliminate birthright citizenship “Dred Scott II.”

Until recently, Judge Ho’s article was of academic interest only. No longer. On day one of his second term, Mr. Trump issued an executive order aimed at eliminating birthright citizenship for children born to mothers who are present in the U.S. illegally or temporarily—unless the father is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident at the time of the birth. In response to suits filed by multiple states, a federal judge issued a temporary injunction against the executive order, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.” 

If a higher court disagrees, this dispute will almost certainly end up at the Supreme Court. What then? If the justices follow Judge Ho’s argument—or their own prior rulings—Mr. Trump will lose. But in an interview last November after Mr. Trump’s election victory, Judge Ho offered the court an escape hatch. “Birthright citizenship obviously doesn’t apply in case of war or invasion,” he said. “No one to my knowledge has ever argued that the children of invading aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship.” If Mr. Trump’s characterization of mass illegal immigration as an invasion is legally correct, Judge Ho implies, the executive order could be upheld.

But is it an invasion? Enter the Texas Public Policy Foundation, not exactly a band of never-Trumpers. This staunchly conservative organization was headed by Kevin Roberts before he left to become president of the Heritage Foundation. Brooke Rollins, who founded the America First Policy Institute and is Mr. Trump’s nominee to head the Agriculture Department, is a senior adviser to the Texas foundation’s board. 

In November 2022, the foundation issued a report: “The Meaning of Invasion Under the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution.” After a careful textual, legal and historical inquiry, the report rightly concluded that the term invasion involves two core concepts—entry plus enmity. “Entry alone, which is trespass, is not sufficient to constitute an invasion,” the report concluded. While some nonstate actors, such as cartel-affiliated gangs, may fall under the category of invaders, most illegal entrants don’t. By itself, “the unlawful entry of people into the United States cannot be construed as an invasion.” Thus, Mr. Trump’s use of the term to characterize the situation at the southern border is a metaphor without legal validity or force. The report slams shut Mr. Ho’s proposed escape hatch. 

If the Supreme Court agrees to accept the cases challenging the executive order, the justices will face a choice: They can follow the text and history of the 14th Amendment as well as the court’s past decisions, or they can disregard logic and common sense to give the president what he wants, as they did in their decision on the scope of presidential immunity.

Many Americans have come to view the court as dominated by politics rather than nonpartisan jurisprudence. The court’s decision on birthright citizenship will either accelerate this decline in public trust or begin the long process of reversing it.

Source: Opinion | Trump’s Attack on Birthright Citizenship

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Birth Tourism Update: Spillover from Trump?

2025/01/30 Leave a comment

My latest update. Curious to see if this prompts or not discussion in Canada and whether or not a likely Conservative government decides to revisit the issue:

Birth tourism has risen to pre-pandemic levels after it dropped in half during the shutdowns of COVID-19. In the U.S., Donald Trump has set about trying to end birthright citizenship. What impact his plan might here have remains to be seen. But birth tourism is an issue the next federal government may need to re-examine….

Source: Le tourisme de naissance a doublé depuis la fin de la pandémie, Birth tourism has doubled since the pandemic lull

Filed under Birth Tourism, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Trump’s birthright citizenship order rattles H-1B workers expecting a baby

2025/01/29 Leave a comment

Seems like the hardliners won this debate within the Trump administration but court decisions will likely make this moot:

Ajay’s dilemma shows the wide ranging fallout from the early days of Trump’s immigration crackdown. While the emphasis during the campaign was border security and deportations of people in the country without permission, some of Trump’s first executive orders have targeted legal immigrants. 

That includes refugees whose resettlement plans were canceled, asylum seekers whose appointments to plead their case were scrapped and holders of H-1B and other work and student visas who are now trying to navigate what the new policy on birthright citizenship means for their families.

The situation also highlights tension within the Trump universe about immigration. Elon Musk has called for an expansion of the H-1B visa program to help ensure a robust pipeline of workers for tech companies like his own, while others like Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller have espoused more restrictive polices.

About 85,000 foreigners are allowed to move to the US annually under the coveted H-1B visa program, and there are now hundreds of thousands of people living in the US under those rules. Indians are the biggest recipients, accounting for 75% of all such visa petitions in 2020, with Chinese No. 2 with about 12% and Canadians No. 3. with 1%, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Under Trump’s order, citizenship would be denied to any child who doesn’t have at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident. While it would apply to those in the country illegally — long a goal of Miller and others — it would also extend to those in the US as tourists, students or on temporary work visas.

The US is fairly unique in offering unconditional birthright citizenship, creating a special enticement for foreign workers deciding on which country to move to. Mexico and Canada have similar rules, but places including Australia, Germany, India and the UK don’t. If US nationals have a baby in Australia, for example, the child will automatically get the same visa status as the parents.

There is no official US data available about how many children are born to non-citizens annually. But in lawsuits challenging the order, lawyers said at least 150,000 children a year could be affected.

On Jan. 23, a federal judge in Seattle, John Coughenour, put the order on hold for 14 days and could extend that going forward. Other hearings set for challenges filed elsewhere are expected in the coming weeks.

Rajat Suri, a tech entrepreneur and co-founder of the ride hailing company Lyft Inc., said curtailing birthright citizenship has the potential to make it dramatically harder for US companies to recruit foreign workers.

“Every company that hires talented immigrants to come work for them, they are attracting them to build their lives, including families,” said Suri, whose latest venture is Lima, a company that helps foreign workers interested in moving to the US navigate the system. “If a baby is not going to be a US citizen, that is going to be a huge deterrent.”

He said attracting foreigners to the US is already complicated, given the extensive documentation and vetting needed to win a work visa. He met coworkers on temporary visas who opted to return home because of immigration complications, and adding a layer of uncertainty about the fate of any children born on US soil would only make things more complex, he said.

“We already put immigrants through so much unnecessary trauma,” said Suri, the child of Indian immigrants to Canada who is now a naturalized US citizen. “They will just go to some place that treats immigrants better, where they have options.”…

Source: Trump’s birthright citizenship order rattles H-1B workers expecting a baby

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

← Older posts

Newer posts →