What the [USA] Birthright-Citizenship Debate Is Really About

More on political posturing by DeSantis and Trump with relevant background:

When my Google Alerts sounded this past week, I knew that birthright citizenship was again lighting up in the news. My interest in debates over birthright is professional and abiding: I’m a historian who in 2018 published a book, Birthright Citizens, that traced this approach to national belonging from its origins in debates among Black Americans at the start of the 19th century to 1868, when the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment established that, with a few exceptions, anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen.

On Monday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, looking to advance his presidential campaign, promised to reverse more than a century and a half of law and policy and, as he put it in a statement, “end the idea that children of illegal aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship if they are born in the United States.” A few days later, a spokesperson for another GOP presidential candidate, Nikki Haley, said she “opposes birthright citizenship for those who enter the country illegally,” and the entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy’s campaign said he would reform birthright by adding new citizenship requirements. Having lived through more than one such outburst in recent years—the first in 2018, when then-President Donald Trump proposed to do away with birthright—I know that any promise to transform our citizenship scheme is sure to set off a debate.

But what, we should ask, is that debate really about? Why does it keep coming up? When we talk about birthright citizenship, we are talking about democracy—its fundamental component that grants equal status to every person born in this country and affords them all the same rights of citizenship.

Let’s briefly review. Although the 1787 Constitution did not bar Black Americans from citizenship, it also did not plainly state what made any person a citizen. The result was that Black Americans received profoundly uneven treatment before the law; most authorities leaned toward the view that color, with its implied links to slave status, disqualified Black Americans from citizenship. Black activists waged a long campaign arguing that, on the face of the Constitution and as a matter of natural rights, Black people were citizens by virtue of their birth on U.S. soil.

Notoriously, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1857 case Dred Scott v. Sandford, concluded that citizenship was beyond the reach of Black Americans; their race disqualified them. During the Civil War and Reconstruction, lawmakers remedied this circumstance: first in an 1862 opinion from Attorney General Edward Bates, then in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and finally in the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which installed birthright in the Constitution, guaranteeing that Black people and all those born in the United States were citizens.

Calls today to do away with birthright citizenship are, in large part, political theater, often a way to project a tough stance on immigration. DeSantis outlined only a very loose strategy, saying he would “force the courts and Congress to finally address this failed policy.” Trump, too, was light on specifics. For all the noise that his administration generated around doing away with birthright citizenship, which he threatened to do multiple times as president, nothing came of it. The meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment as we knew it before the Trump era remains unchanged.

Campaign pledges to end birthright citizenship might get people’s attention, but lawmakers have kept this objective alive in other quarters. Less well known, for example, is how in every session of Congress from 2007 to 2021, a Republican representative introduced something called the Birthright Citizenship Act. The legislation would have redefined the meaning of a minor clause in the Fourteenth Amendment—one that limits birthright status to persons “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. In 1868, this exception excluded the children of visiting diplomats and those of Native American sovereign nations. Today, some lawmakers propose to newly expand the meaning of this clause by defining children as subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and thus birthright citizens, only when they have one parent who is a U.S. citizen or national, a permanent resident residing in the United States, or an alien on active duty in the Armed Forces. In Congress, opposition to birthright simmers on the back burner, but it demands our vigilance lest it boil over.

When politicians dispute birthright, they also open up legal questions about where the power to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment resides. Trump suggested that with his authority, as exercised through an executive order, he could reinterpret who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus a birthright citizen. Members of Congress similarly have taken the view that that body can legislate the amendment’s meaning. Many legal commentators rightly argue that the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say when it comes to the meaning of the Constitution. Our recently constituted Court has not been tested on the issue of birthright, and we must allow for the possibility that it might defer to Congress or the president when it comes to interpreting its meaning.

When Trump first promised to undo birthright, I was primarily concerned about how immigrants and their U.S.-born children would be harmed by such a change. Today, this worry still figures importantly in my mind, but my concerns have grown broader. Calls to undo birthright, though couched in terms of immigration reform, ultimately aim to undo a key precept of our democracy: equitable access to citizenship. Birthright sets an even bar when it comes to being a citizen—all those born here are subject to the same threshold test, no matter whom they descended from. It ensures that, for those born in the United States, citizenship will not be conferred depending on their politics, race, faith, culture, gender, or sexuality. Birthright safeguards those born here from political leaders who would mete out citizenship as a reward or withhold it as a punishment.

The wielding of citizenship as a weapon is precisely what the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to prevent. In 1868, birthright undid the Dred Scott decision. It ensured that the right of Black Americans to belong to this nation was neither open to debate nor susceptible to shifting political whims. Since its ratification, the Fourteenth Amendment has guaranteed the belonging of some of the most vulnerable among us, including generations of children born to immigrant parents. It has protected marginalized, despised, and unpopular people who, when born here, do not need to fear exile or banishment. Birthright citizenship has always been a solution rather than a problem, and our democracy depends on it remaining just that.

Martha S. Jones is the Society of Black Alumni Presidential Professor, a professor of history, and a Stavros Niarchos Foundation Agora Institute professor at Johns Hopkins University.

Source: What the Birthright-Citizenship Debate Is Really About

Canada’s citizenship numbers are rising. How many passed the test?

Some useful numbers on pass rates (91-92 percent). Seems largely unchanged once the initial revised version of test was revised around 2011 when the pass rates dropped significantly (language level and complexity of questions):

On Canada Day, more than a thousand people will be pledging their oath to the country as new Canadian citizens.

Ceremonies for 1,130 citizenship recipients are scheduled to take place across the country on Saturday, according to numbers Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada shared with Global News.

Passing a citizenship test is one of the requirements to officially becoming Canadian – and the majority who took the exam this year were successful, recent IRCC data shows.

Between January and May 2023, a total of 119,053 tests were completed – out of which 92 per cent passed, while the rest failed.

It was a similar story last year, with 91 per cent of the people passing among the roughly 260,000 citizenship tests that were completed.

By comparison, Canadians would be less successful, recent polling suggests.

A Leger survey of 1,512 Canadian adults found that only 23 per cent would pass the citizenship test, based on their answers to 10 randomly selected questions.

The average score of the Canadians who were surveyed was only 49 per cent – where 75 per cent is needed to pass the test.

Source: Canada’s citizenship numbers are rising. How many passed the test?

Curry: Removing one of life’s most memorable days with a Zoom call [citizenship ceremonies]

Another commentary bemoaning the proposed change:

The best part of the Canada Day baseball game between the Toronto Blue Jays and Boston Red Sox was not the leadoff home run by George Springer, or, even the game itself. The Jays lost.

It was the opening ceremonies.

But not the giant Canadian flag unfurled on field, or the Canadian Armed Forces team rappelling from the rooftop to the playing field, though both were pretty spectacular.

It was the Canadian citizenship ceremony.

Nine lucky new Canadians were chosen to participate, to match the starting lineup of the Jays. All clad in the Jays’ Canada Day red jerseys, they were individually introduced to the applauding 40,000 plus fans. The looks on their faces, the body language and the sheer joy of the occasion was something to behold.

After taking the oath of allegiance, in both official languages no less, they were all invited to throw out ceremonial first pitches to their Blue Jay counterparts. Some of them even managed to get the ball to the player’s glove.

It was magnificent, and the crowd cheered them on mightily.

Compare this national spectacle (the game was broadcast on Sportsnet) to the latest brain trust decision about citizenship ceremonies.

They will no longer be in person, but virtual.

Have the Ottawa bureaucrats who came up with this notion ever been to a citizenship ceremony? If they have, shame on them for taking away a memory that will last a lifetime for new Canadians.

The Government of Canada website now says most new Canadians will be invited to a virtual Zoom citizenship ceremony, instead of an in-person event.

That should bring a tear to potential participants’ eyes.

Gather around the computer screen, family, and look at other new Canadians, whom you will never meet in person, and a citizenship judge you will never meet, and crack a bottle of Champagne. We will celebrate with our little group, not all the other new Canadians being sworn in.

I have attended only one citizenship ceremony, and it was back when Jay Aspin was our Member of Parliament. I was invited, as the then executive director of the North Bay & District Multicultural Centre, to sit with the dignitaries (who? me?) and then congratulate each new Canadian after they became citizens.

It was a Canada Day outdoor event, in front of the museum. It was sunny and warm and each new Canadian had friends and family attending. It was a joyous event, even if the Blue Jays weren’t there. The

citizenship judge, imported from southern Ontario, was resplendent in his robes and his presence added gravitas to the event.

It was a day I remember vividly, and I was born in Canada. For those that were not, and became Canadian citizens that day, it was one of the most memorable days of their lives.

A lot has been written about this foolhardy decision to go virtual. I subscribe to Andrew Griffith’s daily Multicultural Meanderings blog, and in a recent post he analyzed the feedback the February announcement by the federal government received.

The announcement was made in The Canada Gazette, rather than in the form of a news release from the minister. When governments do that, they are trying to avoid negative feedback. But it came anyway, in droves.

In the almost 700 comments in the Gazette, opposition is nearly universal among citizens and about two-thirds of immigrants. Former Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson and former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi spoke out against it in the media, among many others, including former immigration ministers and citizenship judges.

But, Griffith noted, “Interestingly, strong support comes from applicants, many of whom are frustrated with the application process and its delays. This clear divide is telling.”

The government says the move to virtual ceremonies could save three months of citizenship processing time, and people won’t have to take time off work to participate. The clear divide Griffith is referring to is the bureaucratic slowness and backlog in processing citizenship applications that is frustrating applicants.

My take is those in the system that are okay with a virtual ceremony just want to get it done, because the process is taking so long. They have never been to a live in-person ceremony, so they don’t know what they are missing.

It is important for all the new immigrants we are seeing in our city, who one day will become Canadian citizens.

Mayor Peter Chirico is quoted in a Sunday BayToday article about Canada Day, saying “We’re coming up on our 100th anniversary of the corporation of the City of North Bay in 2025. Our city is such a diverse and accepting city. The face of North Bay is changing and we’re changing with it. So, we celebrate Canada Day and what Canada means, that it is an accepting place, that it is a safe, and welcoming place.”

Can North Bay replicate what the Jays did for the new Canadians? Not likely, but it could come close.

How about a Canadian citizenship ceremony right before a Battalion home game at Memorial Gardens? It would be full of people cheering them on, and each new Canadian could each take a shot at the Battalion goalie…who would, of course, let them score. What is more Canadian than hockey?

That would be a memorable evening.

Editor’s Note: Don Curry is a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant living in North Bay, and a member of the Bay Today community advisory committee.

Source: Opinion: Removing one of life’s most memorable days with a Zoom call

Think you could pass the citizenship test? Poll shows most Canadians would flunk

No surprise as believe other surveys have similar results. Reflects some of the arcane questions and the general lack of historical knowledge. Those who have to write the test have to prepare and pass rates, last time I checked, are over 90 percent. Similar to other countries, those who have to prepare generally have little difficulty, those who do not tend to “fail:”

Canadians’ hearts may be brimming with pride as Canada Day approaches, but a new poll suggests their minds aren’t full of the knowledge needed to pass a citizenship test.

In a survey of 1,512Canadian adults, Leger found that only 23 per cent would pass the citizenship test, based on their answers to 10 randomly selected questions.

People who wish to become Canadian need to answer 20 questions about citizens’ rights and responsibilities, as well as Canada’s history, geography, economy, government, laws and symbols.

They need to score at least 75 per cent to pass, but the average score of the Canadians who were surveyed was only 49 per cent.

The questions focused on things like famous Canadians (Who is John Buchan?), history (Who established the first European settlements in Canada?) and national symbols (Whose portrait is on the Canadian $10 bill?).

The correct answers, for those struggling along with most survey respondents, are: a popular governor general, the French and Viola Desmond.

History questions seemed to trip up respondents the most: For example, only 24 per cent knew that the House of Commons recognized in 2006 that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.

Only 29 per cent knew the Constitutional Act granted legislative assemblies elected by the people, and only 41 per cent knew that English settlement began in 1610.

They fared slightly better when it came to national symbols and influential people: 49 per cent knew that Marjorie Turner-Bailey is an Olympian and descendant of black loyalists, and 42 per cent recognized Canada’s motto, “From sea to sea.”

Most Canadians were also in-the-know about the main groups of Indigenous Peoples in the country, with 79 per cent correctly identifying First Nations, Métis and Inuit.

People in Western Canada scored slightly better than their East Coast counterparts, with average scores in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia at 50 per cent.

Those in Atlantic Canada scored the lowest, with a 44 per cent on average.

When the results were broken down by political affiliations, People’s Party of Canada supporters had the lowest average score at 47 per cent, while people who vote for the Bloc Québécois scored the highest, at 51 per cent.

There was one question most people seemed to have no problem answering: 81 per cent said they were proud to be Canadian.

The poll cannot be assigned a margin of error because online surveys are not considered truly random samples.

Source: Think you could pass the citizenship test? Poll shows most Canadians would flunk

Common Issues With Citizenship By Investment Program

Interesting that this appeared in CEOWorld with other articles providing general advice on how to apply:

You don’t have to be an expert to realize the fundamental problems with citizenship through investment programs or ‘golden visas.’ A standard golden visa scheme or citizenship by investment program provides for permanent residence and, ultimately, citizenship in consideration of investments in the economy. These schemes provide for a fast-track application process and quicker resolution of issues. These schemes were uncommon during the 1980s when they were first introduced but are presently an attractive way to draw in investors.

However, as they say, all glitters are not gold. Such is also the case with these programs. These programs have been formally structured and are monitored under the necessary rules and regulations. Yet, they have attracted a lot of problems that are making it difficult for countries to back them up. The substantive operation (even procedural at times) of these programs remains in question, and we will explore what they are in today’s discussion. Let us see what problems these programs commonly face.

Is it ethical?

The most common allegations thrown in the way of these programs concern their ultimate outcome: they grant citizenship in exchange for money. If I were to argue from the side of the opponents, you are basically telling people that they can show their true allegiance to the country simply upon investing. Many hardened arguments come from those with very strong, conventional notions of citizenship and its role in maintaining and encouraging national pride and integrity. To them, these programs sell citizenship. Hence, there are many ethical concerns about these programs.

Poorly undertaken due diligence

Generally, these programs do not restrict applications from any foreign national. A country may place a few oversight measures on those coming from select countries. However, these restrictions are limited to very few countries. Even so, due diligence is nevertheless in place. That is, of course, not the problem. The problem lies in the way due diligence is carried out. High-risk profiles need to be filtered out, but many countries fail to do so. While documentary proofs have been mandated, they are not assessed as a standard procedure. To gain as much investment as possible, countries maintain opaque due diligence systems to bypass regular procedural requirements.

Encouraging corrupt activities

Approving high-risk profiles, providing channels to launder money across the globe, and encouraging corruption are major negative impacts of these programs. If we keep aside the arguments on the ‘sale of citizenship’, these programs can operate smoothly and properly, provided their implementation is done right.

For example, Hungary suspended its Golden Visa program after allegations that certain dubious companies were granted the right to sell residence bonds without a transparent procurement process. These companies reportedly amassed over $600 million during the course of 4 years. Why does this happen? There can be several reasons. For instance, lack of verification of the source of funds or limited information on how the investments are contributing to the economy.

Too lax requirements

Many Caribbean countries operate some of the world’s easy-to-access citizenship by investment. Dominica, Saint Lucia, and Antigua and Barbuda, for example, do not impose minimum residence requirements, require very low levels of investment, and offer ultra-fast processing time. While the idea behind these programs is indeed to grant citizenship through a faster and easier route of investment, these requirements invite more suspicion than approval. Why? The answer is obvious: these programs offer safe havens to criminals who run away to these countries to evade the criminal justice system. The evasion of tax is another example.

Source: Common Issues With Citizenship By Investment Program

PQ proposes ‘citizenship’ ceremony for immigrants to Quebec

Meanwhile, the Canadian government has proposed making the citizenship oath self-administered and wanting to reduce the costs and likely numbers of citizenship ceremonies.
It always struck me that the Canadian government undervalued citizenship, particularly in Quebec given that it is one of the few exclusive federal programs that touches Canadians directly and reaffirms Canadian identity.
More PQ political posturing than substantive:
The Parti Québécois is proposing that welcoming and “citizenship” ceremonies be held for immigrants to the province, and that businesses that fully comply with the demands of the Office québécois de la langue française be awarded a publicly visible certificate of good conduct.
In a statement Wednesday morning, PQ language and immigration critic Pascal Bérubé said the proposals are part of an effort to promote the use of French and assist the integration of immigrants.

Source: PQ proposes ‘citizenship’ ceremony for immigrants to Quebec

Canadian Immigration Tracker – April 2023

Have am in the process of renaming this monthly update given COVID is long in the past, if not quite over.

Two things that struck me:

– Sharp decline in Permanent Residents admissions: from 44,780 in March to 29,335 in Apri

– Sharp decline in new Canadian citizens: from 28,249 in March to 15,220 in April

Reasons unclear.

Appears that data revisions for the IMP only affect the annual stock of permits, not the monthly flow data. We await more fulsome explanation from IRCC.

Indignity at a citizenship ceremony | TheSpec.com

A bit overwrought about the mention of Sir John A (lest we forget that Canada as a country might not have existed without him and others) but otherwise valid observations (although I suspect most participants were less critical than her):

A few weeks ago, I attended the citizenship ceremony of a dear friend of mine. I’ve never been more embarrassed to be a Canadian than I was that morning.

Once a Syrian refugee who had been kidnapped and tortured by ISIS, my friend had been looking forward to this day since his 2016 arrival in Canada. The agonizingly long wait he’d faced to have his citizenship application approved made it a particularly momentous occasion.

Arriving at the Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) building on a sunny Monday morning, an air of excited anticipation filled the lobby. The presiding official initiated the ceremony with opening remarks, including a land acknowledgment and a brief foray into Canada’s history as a nation of immigrants.

About two sentences after painfully mispronouncing the name of the Haudenosaunee nation, the official turned her attention to John A. Macdonald, painting Canada’s first prime minister as an archetypal immigrant which new Canadians ought to consider and revere.

Let me remind you of some of Macdonald’s other accomplishments, which include rubber-stamping the establishment of residential schools and enacting draconian Indian policy all with the goal of ridding Canada of its first peoples and their ways of being. Of all the immigrants the official could have mentioned who have shaped Canadian history, I question whether Macdonald was an appropriate choice.

Off to a cringeworthy start, the ceremony continued in a blundering fashion as the clerk continually lost her place in the order of ceremony. Every few minutes, everyone clapped their hands to their ears to muffle the ear-splitting squeal of microphone feedback as it became increasingly clear that IRCC had not troubled themselves to conduct a sound check that morning.

When the time came for the candidates to take their oath, the presiding member gave instructions for the candidates to repeat the words of the oath line by line after her. The candidates stood and proudly recited the oath — at least until the presiding official began to read in French.

This woman did not speak a lick of French. As she bungled rudimentary French phonetics and the candidates struggled to follow, audience members exchanged awkward looks. Some (myself included) struggled to maintain their composure at the sheer absurdity of the situation.

Source: Indignity at a citizenship ceremony | TheSpec.com

Canada should deny care to pregnant ‘birth tourists,’ doctor argues

Good article based upon the opinion piece by Dr. Barrett shared yesterday:

Should Canada deny care to ”birth tourists,” pregnant women who visit Canada with the sole purpose of delivering their babies here, thereby obtaining automatic Canadian citizenship for their newborns?

It’s a provocative, and, some say, dangerous suggestion. However, a leading expert in preterm and multiple births is arguing that Canadian hospitals and doctors should have “absolutely zero tolerance” for birth tourism, a phenomenon that is rising once again now that COVID travel restrictions have been dropped.

It’s a “sorry state of affairs” that women in Canada face wait times of 18 months or longer for treatment for pelvic pain, uncontrolled bleeding and other women’s health issues, Dr. Jon Barrett, professor and chief of the department of obstetrics and gynaecology at McMaster University wrote in an editorial in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada.

“The thought that even ONE patient seeking birth tourism would potentially take either an obstetrical spot out of our allocated hospital quota, or even worse, a spot on the gynaecologic waiting list, should be enough to unite all in a position that anything that in any way facilitates this practice should be frowned upon,” Barrett wrote.

“These are non-Canadians getting access to health care, which we haven’t got enough of for our own Canadians,” he said in an interview.

When planned low-risk births go wrong, and babies end up spending weeks in intensive care, hospitals can be left with hundreds of thousands in unpaid bills. One Calgary study found that almost $700,000 was owed to Alberta Health Services over the 16-month study period.

The women themselves are also at risk, Barrett said, of being  “fleeced” by unscrupulous brokers and agencies charging hefty sums upfront for birth tourism packages that include help arranging tourist visas, flights, “maternity” or “baby hotels” and pre-and post-partum care.

And, while he declined to provide specific examples, “Tempted by large sums of money, even the best of us can be tempted into poor practice,” Barrett wrote.

The issue has triggered high emotions and debate among Canada’s baby doctors. Under Canada’s rule of jus soli, Latin for “right of soil,” citizenship is automatically conferred to those born on Canadian soil.

Birthright citizenship gives the child access to a Canadian education and health care. They can also sponsor their parents to immigrate when they turn 18.

Other developed nations require at least one parent to be a citizen, or permanent resident.

According to data collected by Andrew Griffith, a former senior federal bureaucrat in Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, “tourism” births account for about one per cent, give or take a bit, of total births in Canada. Data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information show Canada hosted 4,400 foreign births in 2019.

At a national level, the numbers aren’t huge, however they can become significant at the local level, Griffith said: In pre-COVID years, non-resident births accounted for up to 25 per cent of all births at a single hospital in Richmond, B.C., while the numbers at a handful of other popular destination hospitals in Ontario and Quebec approached five to 10 per cent of all births.

“In a system that is tight and stretched, it does become an issue at the hospital level,” Griffith said.

But birth tourism also undermines the integrity and confidence in Canada’s citizenship process, he said, “It appears like a short cut, a loophole that people are abusing in order to obtain longer-term benefit for their offspring.”

“It sends the wrong message that basically we’re not very serious in terms of how we consider citizenship and its meaningfulness and its importance to Canada,” Griffith said.

Barrett is careful to stress that birth tourism absolutely doesn’t apply to women who happen to be in Canada because of work, or study programs, or as refugees. “We must declare that people who are here for a genuine reason should have seamless access to health care,” he said.

What he opposes are the “non-urgent planned and deliberate birth tourists in our hospitals.”

Doctors can’t deny care to a woman in labour. Emergency care would always be given, he said. “Obviously you’re never going to turn somebody away.”

But doctors and hospitals could decline to provide pregnancy care before birth. “Eventually, if you create this unfriendly environment,” Barrett said, “if everybody said we are not looking after you and not facilitating this, eventually people will not come. They would realize they are not getting what they are seeking, which is optimal care.”

Some women step off the plane 37 weeks pregnant, three weeks from their due date. “That’s why my colleagues say, ‘You can’t do that. People are going to suffer,’” Barrett said. “Yes, unfortunately, people are going to suffer, because they won’t get pregnancy care, and they’ll show up at the hospital without antenatal care.”

While some women do come to Canada seeking superior medical care, “let’s be frank,” said Calgary obstetrician and gynecologist Dr. Colin Birch. “The principal motivator is jus soli.

“Sometimes its veiled under, ‘I want to get better medical care,’ but, interestingly, they fly over several countries that can give them the equivalent care to Canada to get here,” said Birch, countries that don’t offer jus soli.

Birch is co-author of the Calgary study, the first in-depth look at birth tourism in Canada. Their retrospective analysis, a look back over the data, involved 102 women who gave birth in Calgary between July 2019 and November 2020. A deposit of $15,000 was collected from each birth tourist, and held in trust by a central “triage” office to cover the cost of doctors’ fees. A deposit wasn’t collected to cover fees for hospital stays for the mom or baby; women were made aware they would be billed directly.

The average age of the woman was 32. Most came to Canada with a visitor visa, arriving, on average, 87 days before their due date. Birth tourists were most commonly from Nigeria, followed by the Middle East, China, India and Mexico. Overall, 77 per cent stated that the reason for coming to Canada was to give birth to a “Canadian baby.”

Almost a third of the women had a pre-existing medical condition. One woman needed to be admitted to the ICU after delivery for cardiac reasons, another was admitted for a high blood pressure disorder and stroke. Nine babies required a stay in the neonatal intensive care unit, including one set of twins that stayed several months. Some women skip their bills without paying.

“Every conversation about heath care is that we haven’t got money for health care,” Birch said. “Yet you’ve got unpaid bills of three-quarters of a million. It’s not chump change.”

But denying care is a dangerous and unrealistic “gut reaction” that some hospitals have already taken, Birch wrote in his counter editorial for the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. “Let’s be very clear: They won’t let them through the front door, or they send them on to another hospital.”

“You cannot have zero tolerance for patients,” Birch said. “You can’t do that because that leads to maternal and fetal complications.”

The federal government could tweak the rule of “jus soli,” excluding people who just come to Canada on a temporary visitor visa to give birth, and then leave, he and others said. “You do the Australian approach, that one of the parents has to be a citizen of the country,” said Griffith, a fellow of the Environics Institute and Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

Three years ago, the United States announced it would start denying visitor visas to pregnant foreign nationals if officials believe the sole purpose was to gain American citizenship for their babies.

While some have said birth tourists are being demonized as “queue jumpers and citizenship fraudsters,” Griffith isn’t convinced birth tourism is a politically divisive issue.

“I don’t think there are very many people that really would get upset if the government sort of said, ‘We’re going to crack down on birth tourists, women who come here specifically to give birth to a child and who have no connection to Canada.’”

Source: Canada should deny care to pregnant ‘birth tourists,’ doctor argues

Griffith: A one-click citizenship oath isn’t the way to go

My analysis of the feedback to the government’s proposal to allow for self-administered citizenship oaths:

The federal government was probably hoping nobody would notice when it announced in February that it was planning to allow self-administered citizenship oaths. It quietly rolled out the news in its official online newspaper the Canada Gazetterather than through the minister responsible.

But opposition was swift, voiced by prominent people including former governor general Adrienne Clarkson, former minister of immigration Sergio Marchi, former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi and former citizenship judges. The Conservatives opposed the change in Parliament. And nearly 700 people left comments on the notice during the consultation period. Of them, two-thirds of them disapproved.

The plan would allow the citizenship oath to be taken using a secure online portal without the presence of an authorized person, a departure from the tradition of in-person ceremonies or those held virtually. The government says the move could cut processing time by three months and would eliminate the need for people to take time off work to attend ceremonies.

In the comments, opposition is nearly universal among citizens and about two-thirds of immigrants. But, interestingly, strong support comes from applicants, many of whom are frustrated with the application process and its delays (table 1).

This clear divide is telling.

https://e.infogram.com/6bd9c4ce-b784-4e21-a639-f25c3cc3b05f?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Fjune-2023%2Fa-one-click-citizenship-oath-isnt-the-way-to-go%2F&src=embed#async_embed

The government could seize on this significant support among applicants, but it would only reinforce the narrative that the Trudeau Liberals neglect the harder and more fundamental issues of improving application processing and service. Large backlogs, now declining, similarly reinforce the narrative that government programs are not working.

The settlement industry has been silent on the plan, which is disappointing considering the crucial role it plays in the immigration journey. Immigration lawyers, their associations and the settlement sector did not submit any comments. The only organization that provided comments was the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants, and it opposes the move.

The process outlined in the Gazette allowed anonymous comments. As table 2 illustrates, anonymous commenters appear more supportive of the change. The overwhelming negative commentary may have discouraged some from identifying themselves. Additionally, some immigrants and applicants might have feared publicly expressing opposition because they worried it could have a negative impact on their citizenship application process.

https://e.infogram.com/11f24e31-e639-422e-a6e6-040960025d1f?parent_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolicyoptions.irpp.org%2Fmagazines%2Fjune-2023%2Fa-one-click-citizenship-oath-isnt-the-way-to-go%2F&src=embed#async_embed

Comments varied from brief expressions such as “yes,” “no,” “fantastic,” or “horrible” to more extensive submissions. Supporters point to efficiency and reduced timelines, and most of their comments are short. Opponents tend to mention policy narratives or talk about their experiences, emphasizing the significance of reciting the oath together with other people virtually or in person. Their comments are much more detailed than those of the supporters.

The miniscule number of comments submitted in French (less than one per cent) is likely a reflection of meagre coverage and commentary in French-language Quebec media. Canadian citizenship (unlike immigration) is not a big topic in their coverage. It’s also possible some Quebecers submitted their comments in English.

Where does this leave the government? 

The government should focus on streamlining the application and processing procedures instead of diminishing the significance of the ceremony. After all, for most applicants, transparency (“where is my application in the system?”) and predictability (“when will it be approved?”) are their key issues.

Ceremonies serve as one of the few positive touch points between the government and immigrants. The overall weight of the Gazette submissions supports this viewpoint, emphasizing the meaningfulness of historical processes and the symbolism they hold.

Methodology

All comments were compiled into a spreadsheet to allow for analysis. Duplicative narratives were deleted in cases where they appeared in a number of sections. “Yes,” “No” and equivalent one-word comments were treated as separate comments (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada can separate out duplicate entries for “individuals.”)

In identifying comments as being from citizens, applicants or immigrants, a strict test was applied: Did the comment identify the person explicitly as one of the three? The terms are not mutually exclusive. Many commenters identified themselves as both citizens and former immigrants, and all applicants are immigrants. However, a more liberal test allowing for more interpretation of the substance of comments would likely show a comparable result.

Source: A one-click citizenship oath isn’t the way to go