Todd: Should birthright citizenship, banned in most countries but not Canada, be a human right?

2025/02/18 Leave a comment

More on birth tourism, based on some of my analysis:

“Birth tourism” is on the rise again in Canada.

In the past year, 5,219 babies were born in Canada to travelling foreign nationals.

In B.C., 102 non-resident births were at Richmond General Hospital; 99 were at Surrey Memorial; 97 were at Vancouver’s St. Paul’s Hospital; and another 85 were at Children’s Hospital, according to Andrew Griffith, a former senior director in Canada’s immigration department who is now an immigration analyst.

At the same time that Griffith was releasing data showing non-resident births are returning to 2019 levels in an article published in Policy Options last month, entrepreneurs in Richmond said there has been an uptick in inquiries from women in China and other parts of East Asia who want to have their babies in Canada now that President Donald Trump aims to end birthright citizenship in the U.S.

The ethical debate over birthright citizenship, also known as jus soli (right of the soil), is coming to a head as Democratic U.S. states challenge Trump’s initiative and non-resident births rise again in Canada with the easing of COVID-19 restrictions.

Data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information shows the percentage of non-resident births in Canada fell from 1.6 per cent of total births in 2019-20 to 0.7 per cent in 2020-22. It rebounded to 1.5 per cent in 2023-24.

A majority of countries forbid birthright citizenship, including virtually every country in Europe, Asia and Africa. It’s permitted in only about 33 nations.

Even though 160 years ago the U.S. enshrined the 14th Amendment to protect the constitutional rights of those born on its soil, particularly former slaves, Griffith said Canada’s laws on birthright citizenship could be more easily changed than in the U.S.

While most countries mandate that a child’s citizenship depends on the passport held by the parents, Canadian academics argue that birthright citizenship should be a “global human right.”

Today, one of the most common rebuttals to such a stand is that babies who receive citizenship only because they were born on Canadian territory are jumping the country’s immigration queue, which others must go through to qualify to become permanent residents and access universal education, health care and social services.

Two Canadian scholars who have obtained federal government grants to research birth tourism insist it must be protected in the name of “reproductive autonomy.” They say those who oppose it are “demonizing” and “criminalizing” non-resident pregnant people.

University of Carleton law professor Megan Gaucher believes critics of birthright citizenship are engaging in “settler-colonial” thinking that reflects “long-standing racist ideas.”

Ottawa’s Gaucher co-wrote an article on the subject with Lindsay Larios, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Manitoba who has obtained a federal grant to do collaborative research on birthright citizenship with B.C.’s Migrant Workers Centre.

Gaucher and Larios maintain attempts to portray birth tourists “as queue jumpers and citizenship fraudsters ignores the real-life obstacles they encounter within the health-care system and the Canadian immigration system.”

Larios argues that opponents who say offspring shouldn’t get citizenship because of their birth parent’s “precarious” immigration status are ignoring what she calls “reproductive justice.”

Opposition to the position set out by Gaucher and Larios has come from politicians, and medical and immigration professionals.

Rather than being disadvantaged, Griffith said, most women who engage in birth tourism come to North America with enough wealth to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for travel, accommodation (including in so-called “birth hotels”), and hospital deliveries.

The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada has said birth tourism needs further investigation. And Dr. Jon Barrett, head of obstetrics at McMaster University in Hamilton, has written that Canadian hospitals should have “absolutely zero tolerance” for it.

Doctors “should unite in a firm stand against birth tourism,” Barrett said, arguing it stresses Canada’s health-care system and puts pregnant foreign nationals at risk of being “fleeced by unethical individuals.”

An Angus Reid Institute poll found that in 2019, when Richmond Hospital was the epicentre of Canada’s birth tourism industry, that two-of-three Canadians believed “a child born to parents who are in this country on tourist visas should not be granted Canadian citizenship.”

Births to non-residents now make up 6.9 per cent of all deliveries at Richmond Hospital, which is down from 24 per cent before the pandemic. Despite this year’s jump in inquiries from people seeking to have babies in Canada because of Trump’s threat, Griffith believes the overall decline over the last few years at Richmond Hospital is owed largely to China restricting its citizens’ travel.

There is no data on whether international students in B.C. have given birth in hospitals here. International students in this province can join the Medical Services Plan by paying $75 a month. In Ontario, said Griffith, some non-resident mothers who have paid for hospital deliveries could be foreign students as that province doesn’t allow them to receive subsidized health care.

In light of a lack of government oversight of birth tourism, Griffith said there is need for more research, including like one study from Calgary. Four-of-five non-resident mothers who delivered babies in that city said their primary motivation was to give their newborn Canadian citizenship. The largest group, one-of-four, was from Nigeria.

Given the ethical issues at stake, Griffith suggests Canada, whose citizenship rules aren’t bound by a Constitution like in the U.S., take a responsible middle way in regard to birthright citizenship.

To reduce the chances of exploitation, he recommends Canada follow the lead of Australia, which allows a baby born on its soil to receive citizenship only if at least one of the child’s parents already has that status.

Source: Should birthright citizenship, banned in most countries but not Canada, be a human right?

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

SUN EDITORIAL: Hoist our flag? Only if you love Canada, Himmelfarb’s call to action

2025/02/17 Leave a comment

We did as it was and is a good non-partisan initiative. The Sun’s take on what it means to love Canada (agree with many of the points listed, without necessarily some of the jingoist and partisan language):

Joe Clark, Jean Chretien, Kim Campbell, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper issued a statement urging Canadians to show some love for our country on Flag Day.

It’s something we should all get behind.

Unless, of course, you’re one of those people who told us not to celebrate Canada Day in 2021 because this country should be ashamed of its “genocidal” past.

This country has a proud history of upholding democratic rights and freedoms. Have we got it wrong at times? Sure. The answer isn’t to wallow in grief, but to move on with determination to do better.

Don’t wave the flag if you persist in calling people “settlers” or “colonialists.” For centuries, immigrants have come to this country from around the world seeking refuge from oppression, poverty, discrimination and war. Once they’re Canadians, that’s all they are. Calling them settlers is insulting and divisive. We’re all Canadians. Full stop.

Don’t wave the flag if you demand this country change the names of our schools and institutions to erase the history of those who built this country. Ironically, those who mock President Donald Trump for changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America think it’s just fine to arbitrarily rename our public infrastructure. They have a sketchy knowledge of history and use a flawed process.

Don’t wave the flag if you have wrecked a statue. You cannot simultaneously destroy the leaders and educators who built this land and pretend you’re honouring it.

If you’ve been on the streets of our cities for the last 18 months waving a Palestinian flag in support of Hamas, don’t now wave the Canadian one. Hamas is a culture of hatred, antisemitism and bigotry. Those aren’t Canadian values.

And don’t wave the flag if you have referred to this country as a “post-national state with no core identity.” We’re looking at you, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Over your nine years in office, you’ve turned this country into a place where those who wave the Canadian flag are arrested.

You may call it Turtle Island. We’ll call it Canada. It’s our home and native land. And, yes, we’re immensely proud to wave its flag.

Source: EDITORIAL: Hoist our flag? Only if you love Canada

On the left, Alex Himmelfarb, former Clerk, has a call for action:

This flag day is different. The threats of economic coercion from Trump and his gang of oligarchs are meant to intimidate and divide Canadians and subjugate Canada to the will of the US regime. Instead they have ignited a surge of patriotism rarely seen in Canada. 

Inevitably some voices argue for appeasement or at least negotiation but as Churchill once said, “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth.” And someone else once said, I’m not sure who, “an appeaser is simply trying to convince the crocodile to eat them last.” In any case most Canadians seem to understand that this is a time to stand up for Canada and fight for our sovereign right to shape our own destiny, to say no to bullying, to stare down the threats even as we understand the risks. To cite one more wise soul, Bob Marley, “We never know how strong we are until being strong is our only choice.”

We can also draw some lessons on how to build the Canada we want as we witness the unraveling of democracy in the US and the assault on democracies everywhere, indeed the assault on the idea of democracy. We can see the dangers of a plutocracy in which a few individuals and corporations accumulate so much wealth and power that they can shape and pollute public discourse, use public institutions for their own purposes, influence world affairs, including war, and accumulate yet more wealth and power. We can see how paralyzing it is when our tools for self-governing, taxes, regulations, the state itself are demeaned and undermined. We can see the dangers to civilization and the planet when private interests trump the need to preserve the commons. We can see the horrible human costs of using hate and division to advance a political agenda. We can see the importance of robust inclusive democracy and strong countervailing institutions – unions, civil society organizations, social movements, the courts, a free press – to keep government in check. We can see the importance of international cooperation for climate action, for human rights, for peace and security.

Equality, inclusion, sustainability, solidarity – that’s what’s needed not simply to defend democracy we but to build the democracy we need, in our politics, in our workplaces, in our everyday lives. This is a time for building public power, for collective enterprise, for revitalizing industrial policy, for developing new forms of public ownership, for environmental stewardship and resolute action on the climate crisis, for strengthening the care economy, for building the social, cultural and economic infrastructure for a more resilient Canada, for taking the lead in a new internationalism. Over 65000 Canadians have so far signed the Canada pledge calling on our leaders – federal, provincial, indigenous, municipal – to work together to fight the threats and fight for the Canada we need.  Add your voice. Happy Canada Flag Day. 

Source: https://afhimelfarb.wordpress.com/2025/02/15/this-flag-day-is-different/

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Barnett: Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship, Somin: Birthright Citizenship – A Response to Barnett and Wurman

2025/02/17 Leave a comment

These two articles given a sense of the different legal arguments (think it is still a stretch to justify a change without an amendment).

Starting with those who believe there is a case:

…Which brings us to the children of people who are present in the United States illegally. Has a citizen of another country who violated the laws of this country to gain entry and unlawfully remain here pledged obedience to the laws in exchange for the protection and benefit of those laws?

Clearly, the parents are not enemies in the sense of an invading army, but they did not come in amity. They gave no obedience or allegiance to the country when they entered — one cannot give allegiance and promise to be bound by the laws through an act of defiance of those laws. Such persons can even be summarily removed from the country without judicial procedures of the sort that would protect citizens. If the allegiance-for-protection view informed the original meaning of the text, then they and their children are therefore not under the protection or “subject to the jurisdiction” of the nation in the relevant sense.

The executive order’s exclusion of children born to mothers who are “lawful but temporary” residents is a more complicated question not addressed here. And whether Congress ought to grant naturalized citizenship to children born to those illegally present in the United States is a policy issue distinct from whether the 14th Amendment has already done so. The Supreme Court has, in a footnote, presumed that the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional phrase applied equally to people who are here illegally, but the issue was neither briefed nor argued in that case; nor was it material to its outcome.

When they finally consider this question, the justices will find that the case for Mr. Trump’s order is stronger than his critics realize.

Randy E. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center and an author of “The Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit.” Ilan Wurman is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Minnesota and the author of “The Second Founding: An Introduction to the 14th Amendment.”

Source: Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship

Somin’s rebuttal:

In a recent New York Times op ed, legal scholars Randy Barnett and Ilan Wurman offer a partial defense of President Trump’s executive order denying birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants, and migrants in the US on temporary visas. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone “born … in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The standard view of this provision is that it covers everyone born in the United States that is subject to US law, and thus, as the Supreme Court explained in the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case “includ[es] all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications… of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.” The Indians “owing direct allegiance to their several tribes” were excluded because Indian nations were distinct sovereigns exempt from many US laws. For this reason, four federal courts have ruled against Trump’s order.

Barnett and Wurman argue that only people born in the United States at a time when their parents have traded “allegiance” for “protection” truly qualify as under the jurisdiction of the United States. They contend that illegal migrants haven’t made any such compact with the US, and therefore don’t qualify.

Barnett and Wurman cite an 1862 opinion by Attorney General Edward Bates stating that “The Constitution uses the word ‘citizen’ only to express the political quality of the individual in his relations to the nation; to declare that he is a member of the body politic, and bound to it by the reciprocal obligation of allegiance on the one side and protection on the other.” Barnett and Wurman claim the Citizenship Clause is based on a social contract theory under which people enter into a “social compact” with the government, trading allegiance for the protection of the laws.

There are several flaws in Barnett and Wurman’s “allegiance-for-protection” theory. The biggest is that, if consistently applied, it would undermine the central purpose the Citizenship Clause: extending citizenship to recently freed slaves and their descendants. Slaves born in the United States (and their parents, who were also usually slaves) obviously weren’t part of any social compact under which they traded allegiance for protection. Far from protecting them, state and federal governments facilitated their brutal oppression at the hands of their masters.

This situation changed, to an extent, with the abolition of slavery through the Thirteenth Amendment. But  the “subject to the jurisdiction” language of the Citizenship Clause refers to people subject to that jurisdiction at the time they were born. For example, the child of a foreign diplomat doesn’t get birthright citizenship if her parents later lose their diplomatic immunity. If being subject to US jurisdiction requires a compact trading allegiance for protection, former slaves obviously didn’t qualify. Thus, the Barnett-Wurman theory would defeat the central purpose of the Citizenship Clause. That alone is reason to reject it.

Another problem with their analysis is that they rely almost exclusively on sources interpreting the nature of citizenship before enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as the 1862 Bates opinion. But the whole point of the Citizenship Clause was to expand the range of people eligible for birthright citizenship, to include former slaves. Thus, we should not assume that the Citizenship Clause is limited by previous understandings.

Barnett and Wurman do not consider extensive evidence from the period during and immediately after enactment, of the kind canvassed by scholars such as Michael Ramsey in his detailed 2020 article on this subject. That evidence, as Ramsey explains, strongly supports birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented migrants.

Barnett and Wurman argue that the traditional view cannot explain seeming anomalies, such as “the status of children born to citizens residing within enemy-occupied territory, who appear to have been considered citizens if their parents remained loyal… [a]nd… the status of children born to foreigners on foreign public vessels in U.S. waters, who were not considered citizens.” These aren’t actually anomalies at all. As the Supreme Court ruled in 1812, foreign public vessels in US territorial waters remain under the sovereignty of their governments, and therefore are not within US jurisdiction. Citizens residing within enemy-held territory remain under an obligation to follow US law, and that duty can be enforced upon them in a way it cannot be on foreign troops (for example through prosecutions undertaken after the US recaptures the territory).

Finally, it’s important to remember that, as Gabriel Chin and Paul Finkelman have shown, the freed slaves whose children were covered  by the Citizenship Clause included a large population that had entered the US illegally, by virtue of being brought in after the federal government banned the slave trade in 1808. This shows that illegal entry was not considered a barrier to being under US jurisdiction.

Even if valid, the Barnett-Wurman theory only partially justifies Trump’s order. That order excludes not just children of illegal entrants, but those born to migrants who entered legally on temporary visas. But their argument fails with respect to children of the undocumented, as well. At the very least, it is not strong enough to overcome decades of contrary precedent and practice, thereby subjecting hundreds of thousands of innocent children to the trauma of deportation.

Source: Birthright Citizenship – A Response to Barnett and Wurman

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

Canadian Immigration Tracker – December 2024 update and full-year comparisons

2025/02/15 Leave a comment

Full Year 2024 annual comparisons

  • Permanent residents admissions: From 449,00 in 2023 to 482,000 in 2024 or 7.3 percent.   
  • TR2PR (Those already in Canada): From 244,000 in 2023 to 247,000 in 2024 or 1.3 percent. 
  • TRs-IMP: From 874,000 in 2023 to 746,000 in 2024 or -14.7 percent. Significant decrease in PGWP and spouses
  • TRs-TFWP: From 191,000 in 2023 to 198,000 in 2024 or 3.6 percent.
  • Students: From 709,000 in 2023 to 540,000 in 2024 or -28.9 percent. Post-secondary only: Decline from 544,000 to 387,000 or 23.9 percent.
  • Asylum Claimants: From 149,000 in 2023 to 175,000 in 2024 or 17.5 percent.
  • Citizenship: From 377,000 in 2023 to 372,000 in 2024 or -1.3 percent.
  • Visitor Visas: From 1,846,000 in 2023 to 1,478,000 in 2024 or -19.9 percent.
  • Note settlement services and citizenship application numbers for 2024 requested and will post when received.

Canadian Immigration Tracker – December 2024 update and full-year comparisons

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with , ,

UK to reject ‘dangerous journey’ refugees citizenship

2025/02/13 Leave a comment

Not sure how that will withstand legal challenges but we shall see:

The government has toughened up rules making it almost impossible for a refugee who arrives in the UK on a small boat to become a British citizen.

New guidance states that anyone who enters the UK illegally having made a dangerous journey, which could be via boat, but also by means such as hiding in a vehicle, will normally be refused citizenship, regardless of the time that has passed.

In a statement, the Home Office said the strengthened measures made it clear that anyone who entered the UK illegally would face having a British citizenship application refused.

But, the change has been condemned by the Refugee Council and some Labour MPs – including Stella Creasy who said the change “meant refugees would forever remain second class citizens”.

Changes, first disclosed by the Free Movement blog, were introduced to guidance for visa and immigration staff on Monday.

The changes mean that anyone deemed to have entered the country illegally – including those already here – will not be able to apply for citizenship.

Described as a “clarification” to case worker guidance when assessing if a claimant is of “good character’, it says: “Any person applying for citizenship from 10 February 2025, who previously entered the UK illegally will normally be refused, regardless of the time that has passed since the illegal entry took place.”

Another new entry to the same guidance says: “A person who applies for citizenship from 10 February 2025 who has previously arrived without a required valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation, having made a dangerous journey will normally be refused citizenship.

“A dangerous journey includes, but is not limited to, travelling by small boat or concealed in a vehicle or other conveyance.”

Previously, refugees who had arrived by irregular routes would need to wait ten years before being considered.

Under international law, people are allowed to seek asylum, but the government’s move to strengthen its border control and laws on entry, will prevent some people from doing so.

It comes after Labour’s new border security bill, which scraps the Conservatives’ Rwanda plan and boosts police powers against people smugglers, cleared its first vote in the House of Commons on Monday.

The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill sets out Labour’s plan to treat people smugglers like terrorists, and creates a new crime of endangering another person during an illegal crossing in the Channel.

The Home Office also published footage of enforcement teams raiding 828 premises, including nail bars, car washes, and restaurants, as part of a UK-wide crackdown on illegal working earlier this week.

The Refugee Council estimates the guidance will prevent at least 71,000 refugees from obtaining British citizenship.

Enver Solomon, CEO of the charity, said the government’s move “flies in the face of reason”.

“The British public want refugees who have been given safety in our country to integrate into and contribute to their new communities, so it makes no sense for the government to erect more barriers.

“We know that men women and children who are refugees want to feel part of the country that has given them a home, and support to rebuild their lives.

“We urge ministers to urgently reconsider.”

Meanwhile, immigration barrister Colin Yeo claimed on social media that it is a “clear breach of the refugee convention”.

Although the Conservatives have yet to respond to the government’s decision, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch told the BBC last week that she believes the right to citizenship and permanent residency “should only go to those who have demonstrated a real commitment to the UK”.

Badenoch spoke about her proposals to toughen up citizenship rules by making it more difficult for new immigrants to be able to permanently settle in the UK.

Citizenship applications will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, it is understood.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “There are already rules that can prevent those arriving illegally from gaining citizenship.

“This guidance further strengthens measures to make it clear that anyone who enters the UK illegally, including small boat arrivals, faces having a British citizenship application refused.”

Source: UK to reject ‘dangerous journey’ refugees citizenship

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration, Refugees Tagged with

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

← Older posts

Newer posts →