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

2024/12/12 Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

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

2024/12/10 Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

C-71 Senate committee hearings: My take

2024/12/09 Leave a comment

While I have followed the debates and discussions regarding “lost” Canadians over the years, this was my first time testifying on the issue in the context of C-71 along with many familiar faces. My one ongoing observation is despite all the language around up to one million “lost” Canadians, the reality is that most “lost” Canadians appear not want to be found, with only about 20,000 citizenship proofs issued (2 percent) since the first fix for those who lost their citizenship. 

The other general comment pertains to the government’s policy choice of not having the same time limit to meet the residency requirement as for Permanent Residents. The statement by officials that this is intended to make it easier and more flexible for applicants suggests that officials, and likely the minister, have not learned many lessons from the overly facilitative approach for Permanent Residents, international students and temporary workers, all of which the government has since rolled back.

We shall see the SOCI report in a few weeks and will see what points they took on and which ones they don’t.

The following is my take on the major points raised during Senate’s SOCI pre-study hearings on the Bill. 

Connection test: 1,095 days cumulative with no time limit (C-71) vs within 5 years: My earlier article and formal submission advocating for the residency requirement to be limited to the same 5 year period as per citizenship applicants provoked discussion at the Senate’s SOCI, with a number of senators questioning the rationale for the government’s decision. 

Minister Miller argued that it was unlikely that the residency requirement would be “spread over forty years” and that a longer time period still means a “fairly important connection,” citing Lebanese Canadians as an example, the “Canadians of convenience” example that was the genesis of the first generation cutoff.  (Miller’s riding is about three percent Lebanese ethnic origin). The Minister also indicated concerns that the five-year limit would create another series of “lost Canadians.” 

Officials further noted that the aim of C-71 was to be facilitative, citing examples of persons coming to Canada annually for summer vacations or family visits. Notably, neither the Minister nor officials addressed the operational complexities of a residency requirement with no time limit. Most witnesses and senators support a connection test.

The appropriateness of a residency-base connection test was accepted by most witnesses.

There was some discussion about whether the lack of a time limit increased the risk of “citizens of convenience,” with the Minister not believing it would (I had previously indicating more likely without a five-year limit).

The possibility of using the electoral list as a basis for a connection test was raised. Given that only about 57,000 persons living outside Canada were issued ballots, only a small fraction of those living abroad, hard to see how this would be a valid alternative.

Numbers affected and operational impact: The Minister and officials provided existing operational data but, beyond generalities, did not share any more detailed internal analysis. There are about 700 applications under the interim measures for those affected by the first generation limit. The Minister does not anticipate that “wild scenarios of hundreds and thousands” will materialize. Officials did not appear to have undertaken any analysis similar to that in my submission that provides estimated orders of magnitude. The other element of note is that the understandable focus was on the immediate cases, those born abroad and unable to transmit their citizenship. There was little to no discussion of the future operational impact and numbers when those second generation children born-abroad had children of their own also born abroad (as is the case of my grandson, who would have to meet the residency test). 

Awareness and clarity: Predictable and legitimate calls for efforts to make those affected aware of the change, with officials indicating their efforts to make persons aware of the interim measures with work underway to prepare once Bill C-71 comes into force. The issue of readability of the current Act and the need for a new Act in lay language was raised, with the Minister noting his agreement in principle but not a priority in the final months of the government’s mandate.

Indian status and citizenship: That some Indigenous persons have Indian status but not citizenship and vice versa was raised, with the Minister noting “ridiculous situations” and that citizenship should be automatic but there were examples of First Nations that were not Canadian.

Adoptions: The CBA raised the issue of the difference between naturally born children, whose citizenship starts on the day of birth, in contrast to adopted children, who only obtain citizenship when the adoption is approved, recommending that the US and British approach of the effective date of adoption being the date of birth of the child. Hard for me to see any practical impact of current policy or substantive inequalities but understand importance to adoptee parents. 

Similarly, I find it difficult to understand the arguments that internationally adopted children, citizens by grant under S 5.1 are being discriminated against compared to naturally born children. (If I recall correctly, the direct route under S 5.1 was a response to parents who wanted their adopted child to be treated identically to a natural-born child, and not under the Permanent Resident pathway as an immigrant. In my view, hard to have it both ways and there does not appear to be any substantive differential treatment in C-71). 

The Minister himself, noting the test applies to the parents, not the child, did not see an inequality. Officials in a clear presentation clarified that natural and adopted are treated as similarly as possible and that not requiring the connection test for international adoptions could mean that citizenship could be passed on through generations without residency in Canada.

Transcript below (preliminary): “If Bill C-71 is amended to eliminate the substantial connections test in the international context and begins to treat adopted persons as if they were naturalized citizens and not citizens by descent, as is in the case for children born abroad to Canadians, this will result in differential outcome for the two groups. Children adopted abroad by Canadians would benefit preferential treatment compared to children born abroad to Canadians, who would then be subject to different and more onerous requirements in order to pass on citizenship by descent. 

If Bill C-71 were to eliminate the substantial connection requirement, again in an international adoptions context, it could mean that a child born abroad and adopted to a Canadian parent could then also adopt a child abroad and pass on citizenship despite never living in Canada. This would mean citizenship by descent could be passed down through generations of people who have never lived in Canada.”

When I worked on these issues some 14 years ago, I always found a graphic was helpful on how C-71 would work with my effort below: 

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with

Criminals in cribs: The crazy attempt to ban birthright citizenship

2024/12/05 Leave a comment

Never heard birth tourism described in this manner:

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

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

The actual wording of the amendment is as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Preparing for a Conservative government in the public service

2024/12/03 Leave a comment

This article was prompted by my experience under the Harper government and Minister Kenney, as a way to assist public servants likely facing a dramatic transition to a Conservative government. I hope readers find it helpful and that this will contribute to conversations regarding the likely transition:

Faced with the likelihood of a majority Conservative government in the foreseeable future, Canada’s federal public service should seriously heed the warning of Stephen Harper’s former communications director, Andrew MacDougall, that “the hangman is coming.”

Over 40 per cent of federal public servants have only worked under the Trudeau government, and after nearly a decade in power, many public servants may have internalized Liberal perspectives.

A Conservative majority would signal public desire for change, and the public service, like it or not, will have to support a different and arguably sharper ideological agenda.

While the Clerk of the Privy Council and deputy ministers will provide high-level direction along with transition briefing books, many of the challenges will affect mid-level executives. Looking back at my experience under the Harper government, as detailed in my book Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism, the following lessons may be helpful.

These reflect the specific policy areas I was responsible for (citizenship and multiculturalism at the federal departments of Canadian Heritage and then Citizenship and Immigration), working under the activist and effective minister Jason Kenney, in what was arguably a less polarized political and social media environment. History seldom repeats itself, but hopefully these reflections will still provide some guidance for public servants beyond the usual transition planning….

Full article source: Preparing for a Conservative government in the public service

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with

Bill C-71 – The need for a timeframe limit: My submission to the Senate’s SOCI

2024/12/02 Leave a comment

The Senate will be starting its review of Bill C-71, the government bill replacing the first generation cut-off for citizenship transmission, by a residency test for the second generation born abroad. The Senate will conduct its review this week prior to the House of Commons given that the House is effectively shut down.

I will be testifying on December 4th.

Please find attached my written submission, arguing for a same time limit of five years to meet the 1,095 day residency requirement as is the case for permanent residents applying for citizenship, and for IRCC to prepare and share its analysis of the likely number of persons affected and the operational impacts along with associated costs. (My own analysis is included in the submission).

I hope you find it interesting.

Citizenship C-71 SOCI Submission – 29 November 2024Download

Meeting notice: The subject matter of Bill C-71, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2024)

Filed under C-71, Citizenship Tagged with

Requirements for acquiring Finnish citizenship to be tightened 

2024/11/28 Leave a comment

Of note:

The requirements for acquiring Finnish citizenship will be tightened in accordance with the Government Programme. Amendments are proposed to the provisions on the establishment of identity, the integrity requirement and the requirement for sufficient financial resources. The government proposal to amend the Citizenship Act was sent out for comments on 27 November.

The aim is successful integration as a prerequisite for being granted citizenship. The purpose of the legislative amendments is also to place greater emphasis on security-related risks and compliance with the rules of society.

“Finnish citizenship is not something that can be granted automatically. It requires successful integration, work, and compliance with the rules of Finnish society,” says Minister of the Interior Mari Rantanen.

More stringent requirements for integrity and sufficient financial resources

The integrity requirement will be made more stringent, which means that committing offences will have a more substantial impact on whether the applicant can be granted citizenship. The importance of national security as part of the procedure for granting citizenship will also be emphasised.

More attention will be paid to sufficient financial resources as an indicator of integration into Finnish society. This means that persons who do not have any income other than unemployment benefit or social assistance will no longer meet this requirement.

More emphasis will be placed on the applicant’s active help in establishing their identity and providing documentary evidence. The amendments will only apply to those who can be reasonably expected to present their national passport. The amendments will not apply to beneficiaries of international protection.

Amendments also proposed to legislation on loss of citizenship

Legislative amendments related to the loss of citizenship will apply to situations where a person has given false information when applying for citizenship or has committed offences that violate Finland’s vital interests. In such situations, the loss of citizenship can become more common in future. For example, a larger number of terrorism-related offences can lead to the loss of citizenship.

The proposal is circulated for comments until 14.1.2025. The government proposal is scheduled to be submitted to Parliament in spring 2025.

Source: Requirements for acquiring Finnish citizenship to be tightened

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with

Human smuggler issued new Canadian passport after court ordered surrender of travel document 

2024/11/21 Leave a comment

Sigh, highlighting systemic coordination failure:

The federal government issued a new passport to an admitted human smuggler after he was ordered to surrender the travel document as part of court-imposed release conditions, CBC News has learned. 

The new passport was discovered in June 2023 by RCMP investigators executing a search warrant at the Montreal home of Thesingarasan Rasiah during a probe targeting an international human smuggling network that Rasiah allegedly headed, according to court records obtained by CBC News. 

At the time, Rasiah was living at home with an electronic ankle bracelet on strict conditions while awaiting sentencing on a February 2023 guilty plea to one count of breaching the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for his role in the smuggling of a Sri Lankan national from the U.S. into Canada in 2021.

Rasiah had been forced to surrender his passport to the RCMP in 2021 as part of his release conditions related to the human smuggling attempt that was intercepted by police in Cornwall, Ont., located about 120 kilometres west of Montreal along the Canada-U.S. border.

Rasiah was also forbidden from applying for any new travel documents.

Smuggling operation linked to deaths

Rasiah was charged on April 1, 2021, after he was caught in a Cornwall motel parking lot receiving a Sri Lankan national who had just been smuggled into Canada. He was sentenced to 15 months in jail in September 2023. 

He was re-arrested this past May by the RCMP on charges he led an international human smuggling organization that moved hundreds of people north and south across the Canada-U.S. border. He remains in custody.

Investigators with the Cornwall Regional Task Force — which includes officers from the RCMP, Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) — also linked Rasiah’s organization to the deaths of nine people on the St. Lawrence River in late March 2023. Two families — one from India, the other from Romania — drowned with a boatman in rough river waters trying to get into the U.S. 

The new passport seized by RCMP during the search of Rasiah’s home in 2023 was issued by Service Canada on April 11, 2023, less than two weeks after eight bodies were pulled from the river, according to a copy of the document filed with the Ontario Court of Justice. …

Source: Human smuggler issued new Canadian passport after court ordered surrender of travel document

Filed under Citizenship, Passports Tagged with ,

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

2024/11/19 Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

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

2024/11/19 Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

A heated rant over healthcare and citizenship

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

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

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


Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →