Coyne: If birth tourism is such a big scam, why do so few immigrants take advantage?

2025/10/16 Leave a comment

Tellingly, Coyne does not cite the example of Australia, which does require one of the parents to be either a Permanent Resident or citizen along with some residency requirements. Agree as the author of the study cited that the numbers are relatively small but they do have an impact on some hospitals in urban areas and overall undermine the meaningfulness of Canadian citizenship.

Classic case, to use former immigration minister Kenney’s phrase, “Canadians of convenience:”

…It’s often argued StatsCan’s numbers are an undercount. Hospital discharge data maintained by the Canadian Institute for Health Information appear to show the number of births to non-residents at three to four times that number: peaking at more than 5,200 in 2024, or (gasp) 1.4 per cent of all births. But still: 3 million temporary residents, and only a measly 5,200 babies? A ticket to citizenship, if not for themselves then at least for their kids, that 99.8 per cent of them pass up? 

If that suggests the problem of “birth tourism” is more rhetorical than real, there is still the principle: doesn’t it “devalue” Canadian citizenship to hand it out to the children of non-citizens? Let’s follow that line of thought. So we deny them citizenship. What happens then?

The critics are right to suggest that a good many of those 3 million “temporary” residents, perhaps as many as half, are likely to remain in Canada, more or less permanently. And yet their children born here would be denied citizenship? A permanent underclass with no legal connection to the country they’ve lived in their whole lives? Is that likely to encourage a sense of belonging, or the contrary?

There are countries that have adopted this rule, but they’re not particularly happy examples. Would anyone claim that Britain or France has a superior record when it comes to integrating immigrants? Or Germany, which, before the law was changed in 2000, denied citizenship to people who had been living there for generations? If we’re talking about “peer countries,” why talk about Old World countries, and not about most of the New World, immigrant-based countries like us, where jus soli is the norm?

I’d say this is a solution in search of a problem, but it’s more like an accelerant in search of a flame. Birthright citizenship works fine. Leave it alone.

Source: If birth tourism is such a big scam, why do so few immigrants take advantage?

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

Chapman: Bill C-3 corrects inequalities, brings Citizenship Act into compliance with the Charter

2025/10/14 Leave a comment

Written before the amendments made by the House immigration committee although I expect Chapman likely opposes all of the amendments based upon his previous writings and testimonies.

And in his criticism of the CPC and their procedural maneuverings, he neglects to acknowledge that the Liberal government and the NDP in previous parliaments poisoned the chalice by expanding the scope of the narrow S-245 to include removal of the first-generation cut-off, hardly an example of being “respectful of democratic institutions:”

…Last week, I watched the committee discussion with concern as the Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre returned to a familiar, dogmatic and troubling playbook—one that elevates fear over fact, and partisan rhetoric over responsible governance. Dismissing expert analysis, disregarding a clear judicial ruling, and inflaming public sentiment may deliver short-term political gain.

However, the long-term cost is steep: the steady erosion of the institutions that underpin our prosperity, our unity, and the rule of law itself.

Democracy depends not only on laws and courts, but on a shared commitment to uphold them. When a political party becomes comfortable with unequal treatment under the law, distorts public discourse, or refuses to acknowledge and correct its own mistakes—these are not isolated errors. They are signs of weakened accountability and declining leadership.

The moral and legal imperative to enshrine equal rights in the Citizenship Act is clear. Equality rights cannot be optional. Canadians must be cautious not to follow the troubling path of democratic backsliding visible else where. A decade ago, few would have predicted how quickly democratic norms in the United States would come under pressure. Institutional decline begins quietly—then accelerates. As with financial markets, trust builds slowly but can disappear overnight. 

And in politics, fear remains an expedient and dangerous currency—too often spent more readily than truth. Leadership of any party—indeed of any party—must be about more than electoral calculus. It must be rooted in principle—be respectful of democratic institutions, guided by evidence, and committed to the rights, dignity, and equality of all citizens.

Bill C-3 is a necessary step in that direction.

Source: Chapman: Bill C-3 corrects inequalities, brings Citizenship Act into compliance with the Charter

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with

Jamie Sarkonak: Canada doesn’t owe the world’s children a passport

2025/10/14 Leave a comment

More support for curbing birthright citizenship:

Anyone in the world can come to Canada, have a baby, and secure that child a lifetime of Canadian benefits along with a family link to this country for later chain migration. They don’t have to speak English or French; they don’t have to share our taboos against incest and rape; they don’t need to contribute anything to Canadian society. There are no guardrails.

But on Tuesday, we got a glimpse of how good things could be when Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel Garner proposed a simple change to the law that would prevent citizenship from being granted to children born in Canada to non-citizens — unless at least one parent has permanent residency.

This would close Canada’s widest and most longstanding chain migration entry point without being too harsh on the foreign nationals who have established a connection to the country (though we do need higher standards for PR, too). It’s about as fair as you can get. Alas, Rempel Garner’s amendment was promptly shot down by the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals, who believe in the extreme approach of handing passports out like candy at a parade.

The rest of the world has noticed our complete lack of boundaries and is taking advantage of it. Non-resident births in 2021-22 doubled to 5,698 from the previous year’s 2,245. It’s a cottage industry in B.C., and in one study of 102 birth tourists at a Calgary hospital, the most popular source country was Nigeria, but parents also came from the Middle East, India and Mexico. Keep in mind that these are just the non-residents — there are plenty of other temporary residents giving birth here, but we don’t seem to be keeping track.

Even if these children grow up and never set foot in Canada again, they’ll be entitled to all the benefits of citizenship. They’ll be able to run for office, vote, and obtain consular services if unrest engulfs whatever country their family has chosen to raise them in. If they ever join a terror organization like ISIS, Canadian officials will be expected to retrieve them.

Not to mention the privilege of low domestic tuition, a right to public health care, the unfettered ability to re-enter the country, the ability to claim all kinds of social benefits, the absolute impossibility of deportation should they ever commit a heinous crime, and the guarantee that their children will be eligible for Canadian citizenship, too — and their children, if the Liberals pass Bill C-3, which has now cleared committee.

It’s not just the developing world’s rich who are using this loophole. It’s an avenue that’s open to any economic migrant: from “students” of strip-mall colleges, to temporary workers, to bogus asylum seekers. Having a child in Canada bolsters their applications to remain, particularly if they ever face deportation….

Source: Jamie Sarkonak: Canada doesn’t owe the world’s children a passport

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

Yakabuski | Le droit du sol en danger/Birthright citizenship

2025/10/14 Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Chronique | Le droit du sol en danger

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

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

2025/10/11 Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

Chris Selley: ‘Birthright citizenship’ is an outdated concept

2025/10/11 Leave a comment

More commentary on birthright citizenship:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with

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

2025/10/10 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with

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

2025/10/09 Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, C-3, Citizenship Tagged with

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

2025/10/08 Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under C-3, Citizenship Tagged with

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

2025/10/08 1 Comment

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

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

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

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

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

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, C-3, Citizenship Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →