Bill C-3 could open the citizenship doors to people with little connection to Canada

2025/08/23 Leave a comment

My latest:

When the Mark Carney government tabled Bill C-3 in June, the purpose of the proposed legislation was to reduce citizenship barriers for any foreign-born children of Canadians who were themselves born abroad, including both second and subsequent generations.  

This would address controversy that surrounded the previous first-generation citizenship cutoff, which resulted in cases where Canadian parents born abroad could not pass on their citizenship to children also born outside of the country.  

However, the biggest effect of these Citizenship Act amendments could be to complicate Canada’s citizenship administration and open the door to applicants who have minimal connection with Canada.  

Bill C-3 is largely identical to the previous government’s C-71, which died on the order paper early this year when Parliament prorogued, followed by a new Liberal Party leader and the general election. 

This citizenship reform was sparked after the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in 2023, ruled as unconstitutional a 2009 law passed by the Stephen Harper government that ended the right of Canadians born abroad to pass down citizenship to any children born outside of Canada. 

After a year of inaction while Ottawa’s political landscape evolved, this past spring the Ontario Superior Court of Justice gave the federal government a deadline of Nov. 20 to pass and implement the new legislation. 

In addressing issues that led the 2009 law being declared unconstitutional, Bill C-3 significantly expands the definition — and the number — of Lost Canadians by not requiring a time limit under which parents born abroad can meet the cumulative physical-presence requirement of 1,095 days (three years).  

If applicants did not have a five-year limit within which to amass three years of accumulated residency (as is the requirement for permanent residents), the new criteria would end up recognizing many as Canadian citizens whose links to Canada are tenuous. 

Speaking last December to a Senate committee that was studying Bill C-71, then-immigration and citizenship minister Marc Miler said the time limit was being eliminated due to a concern that “we would create another series of Lost Canadians.” A senior official from Miller’s department told the committee that eliminating the time requirement was intended to make it easier for qualified recipients to claim citizenship, including those who “come to Canada to study every summer or visit their grandparents so they have built up that connection to Canada over many years and not in a short time frame.” 

Testimony at the Senate committee also revealed that the government was basing the policy change on the relatively low numbers of previous cohorts of Lost Canadians, some 20,000 since 2009, most recently at a rate of about 35 to 40 per year. Miller stated, “It’s sure to go up, but I don’t think there are these wild scenarios where we’ll have hundreds and thousands of people.”  

This casual assertion, however, contrasts greatly with perceptions held abroad, where headlines proclaimed that the new law would open the door to allow thousands of people to claim Canadian citizenship.  

Given that the department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has not provided estimated numbers and impacts beyond broad statements, how many members of the second generation born abroad could avail themselves of Canadian citizenship? 

The potential number of people affected is substantial. 

Of the estimated four million Canadian citizens living outside Canada, about half were born abroad. As of 2017, two-thirds of them lived in the U.S. Another 15 per cent were in the U.K., Australia, France, and Italy. Unsurprisingly the portion living in all other countries has been rising, from 14 per cent in 1990 to 20 per cent in 2017.  

In the context of Bill C-3, this trend is noteworthy. Securing Canadian citizenship may not be a top priority for second- and subsequent-generation expatriates in the U.S., EU, and other politically stable places. But it would be much more of an urgent concern for those in less stable countries.  

Further complicating the issues surrounding Bill C-3, expatriate Canadians are older than those living in Canada – 45.3 years old compared to 41.7. Citizens by descent (i.e. someone born outside Canada to a Canadian citizen) are younger still, at an average age of 31.7. Given their younger ages, citizens by descent are more likely to have children, who will then be able to obtain Canadian citizenship if their parents have met the residency requirement. 

Without an established timeframe, it will be more challenging for applicants to provide citizenship officials with proof of residency, just as it will be challenging for the government to verify residency and predict citizenship acquisition year over year. For example, a person who has studied in Canada continuously for five years would have an easier time providing proof of residency than someone who has visited or worked in Canada at various times for different reasons.  

In terms of protecting Canada’s sovereignty, the porous timeframe could also provide opportunities for long-term foreign interference by countries like China and India in recruiting and exploiting their own expats who have acquired Canadian citizenship. There is currently no security or criminality vetting for Canadians by descent and presumably the same would apply to the second generation born abroad as well. 

Same rights, divergent pathways 

Under current law my own grandson, who was born in Europe, cannot pass down Canadian citizenship to any of his future children. Under Bill C-3 he would gain that right, but only after first spending 1,095 cumulative days in Canada. For people like him, one strategy for achieving that would be to attend a Canadian university or college and accumulate most or all of the 1,095 days while getting a degree. 

However, for a Canadian born abroad who, say, maintains a cottage in Canada and spends eight weeks a year there each summer, it would take nearly 20 years to acquire the right to give their descendants Canadian citizenship. 

The road is even longer for second-generation Canadians who spend most of their life abroad. Even if they make occasional trips to Canada, they would not likely accumulate the 1,095-day requirement unless they return permanently, say, in retirement. 

Descendants who are temporary residents (perhaps through a job transfer, or as spouses of skilled workers or students) would likely achieve the necessary physical-presence threshold, but temporary foreign workers on seasonal or short-term contracts would probably never meet the requirement. 

Estimates of expected numbers needed  

Citizenship officials say that the number of Lost Canadians who want to be found is much smaller, about 20,000 to date, than the “between one and two million” as claimed by some advocates. (Likewise, the low number of expatriates who register and vote at election time is another indicator that the number of Lost Canadians is lower than many suggest.) 

However, Bill C-3’s potential impact could be disproportionately large, significantly affecting government workload and bloating the current processing time of five months or longer for citizenship proofs. Officials from Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada need to determine estimates for the number of new citizens expected under the new law and the resources required to handle the increased workload. 

Arguably, Bill C-3 would move Canada closer to being a hybrid jus sanguinis/jus soli regime, making it possible for families to maintain intergenerational Canadian citizenship through different scenarios. This currently is not possible. 

In the broader sense, however, citizenship policy is about striking the balance between facilitation (making it easier to become citizens and fully participate in the political life of Canada) and meaningfulness (ensuring that becoming Canadian is a significant step in the integration journey for both applicants and Canadian society as a whole).  

In my view, the accumulated-physical-presence requirement should be time-limited to five years, just as it is for new Canadians.  As former prime minister Justin Trudeau stated, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” By implementing two time requirements — five years vs. no time limit — the bill would create two categories of Canadians. 

Canadian citizenship is a precious gift. At the committee stage, members of Parliament must be able to fulsomely examine the implications, both good and bad, of an open-ended residency requirement and seriously consider the option of establishing a specific timeframe of five years within which to accumulate the required 1,095 days to qualify for Canadian citizenship.

Source: Bill C-3 could open the citizenship doors to people with little connection to Canada

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

Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to ‘anti-Americanism’ screening

2025/08/21 Leave a comment

Well, it likely will, encouraged by the Trump administration and USCIS political appointments:

Immigrants seeking a legal pathway to live and work in the United States will now be subject to screening for “anti-Americanism’,” authorities said Tuesday, raising concerns among critics that it gives officers too much leeway in rejecting foreigners based on a subjective judgment.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said officers will now consider whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, “endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused” anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views.

“America’s benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,” Matthew Tragesser, USCIS spokesman, said in a statement. “Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right.”

It isn’t specified what constitutes anti-Americanism and it isn’t clear how and when the directive would be applied.

“The message is that the U.S. and immigration agencies are going to be less tolerant of anti-Americanism or antisemitism when making immigration decisions,” Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions, said on Tuesday. 

Jacobs said the government is being more explicit in the kind of behaviors and practices officers should consider, but emphasized that discretion is still in place. “The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny — just to consider it as a negative discretion,” she said.

Critics worry the policy update will allow for more subjective views of what is considered anti-American and allow an officer’s personal bias to cloud his or her judgment. 

“For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That’s really worrisome,” said Jane Lilly Lopez, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University.

The policy changes follow others recently implemented since the start of the Trump administration including social media vettingand the most recent addition of assessing applicants seeking naturalization for ‘good moral character’. That will not only consider “not simply the absence of misconduct” but also factor the applicant’s positive attributes and contributions.

“It means you are going to just do a whole lot more work to provide evidence that you meet our standards,” Lopez said.

Experts disagree on the constitutionality of the policy involving people who are not U.S. citizens and their freedom of speech. Jacobs, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said First Amendment rights do not extend to people outside the U.S. or who are not U.S. citizens.

Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, believes the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution protects all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, against government encroachment. “A lot of this administration’s activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts,” Robinson added. 

Attorneys are advising clients to adjust their expectations. 

“People need to understand that we have a different system today and a lot more things that apply to U.S. citizens are not going to apply to somebody who’s trying to enter the United States,” said Jaime Diez, an immigration attorney based in Brownsville, Texas. 

Jonathan Grode, managing partner of Green and Spiegel immigration law firm, said the policy update was not unexpected considering how the Trump administration approaches immigration.

“This is what was elected. They’re allowed to interpret the rules the way they want,” Grode said. “The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.”…


Source: Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to ‘anti-Americanism’ screening

Filed under Citizenship, Trump administration Tagged with , ,

Marco Rubio Once Filed a Brief Embracing Birthright Citizenship

2025/08/19 Leave a comment

While people can legitimately change their minds and positions, the nature of many of the policy reversals by Rubio and others appear more driven by pleasing Trump and being in power than by principle:

In a 2016 court filing, Marco Rubio, then a senator running for president, made the case that the Constitution conferred citizenship on essentially all children born in the United States. His argument was a crisp rendition of what was until recently the consensus understanding.

But the views he expressed are now in tension with an executive order issued by President Trump in January that seeks to restrict birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court seems likely to hear a direct challenge to the order’s constitutionality in the term that starts in October.

The little-noticed court filing helps show how quickly the Republican Party and parts of the mainstream of conservative legal thought have shifted on the issue. It is also a reminder that the question of who is born a citizen may affect eligibility to be president.

Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement that “it’s absurd the NYT is even wasting time digging around for decade-old made-up stories,” adding that Mr. Rubio was “100 percent aligned with President Trump’s agenda.”

Source: Marco Rubio Once Filed a Brief Embracing Birthright Citizenship

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with ,

Marche: ‘Acute, Sustained, Profound and Abiding Rage’: Canada Finds Its Voice

2025/08/11 Leave a comment

Good op-ed. But more needed in right and Trump-leaning media…:

The mind-set of Canada is changing, and the shift is cultural as much as economic or political. Since the 1960s, Canadian elites have been rewarded by integration with the United States. The snipers who fought with American forces. The scientists who worked at American labs. The writers who wrote for New York publications. The actors who made it in Hollywood. Mr. Carney himself was an icon of this integration as chair of the board of Bloomberg L.P., the financial news and data giant, as recently as 2023.

As America dismantles its elite institutions one by one, that aspirational connection is dissolving. The question is no longer how to stop comparing ourselves with the United States, but how to escape its grasp and its fate. Justin Trudeau, the former prime minister, used to speak of Canada as a “post-national state,” in which Canadian identity took second place to overcoming historical evils and various vague forms of virtue signaling. That nonsense is over. In several surveys, the overwhelming first choice for what makes the country unique is multiculturalism. This, in a world collapsing into stupid, impoverishing hatreds, is the distinctly Canadian national project.

Even after Covid and the failure to create adequate infrastructure for new Canadians, which lead to a pullback on immigration, Canada still has one of the highest rates of naturalization in the world. This country has always been plural. It has always contained many languages, ethnicities and tribes. The triumph of compromise among difference is the triumph of Canadian history. That seems to be an ideal worth fighting for.

Canada is now stuck in a double reality. In a recent Pew Research Center survey, 59 percent of Canadians identified the United States as the country’s top threat, and 55 percent of Canadians identified the United States as the country’s most important ally. That is both an unsustainable contradiction and also a reality that will probably define the country for the foreseeable future. Canada is divided from America, and America is divided from itself. The relationship between Canada and America rides on that fissure.

Margaret Atwood was, and remains, the ultimate icon of 1960s Canadian nationalism and also one of the great prophets of American dystopia. “No. 1, hating all Americans is stupid,” she told me on “Gloves Off,” a podcast about how Canada can defend itself from America’s new threats. “That’s just silly because half of them would agree with you,” and “even a bunch of them are now having buyers’ regret.”

Large groups of people in Canada, and one assumes in America, too, hope this new animosity will pass with the passing of the Trump administration. “I can’t account for the rhetoric on behalf of our president,” Gov. Janet Mills of Maine said recently on a trip to Nova Scotia. “He doesn’t speak for us when he says those things.” Except he does. The current American ambassador to Canada, Pete Hoekstra, is the kind of man you send to a country to alienate it. During the first Trump administration, the State Department had to apologize for offensive remarks he made, which he had at one point denied. He has also said the administration finds Canadians “mean and nasty.” Such insults from such people are a badge of honor.

But it’s the American system — not just its presidency — that is in breakdown. From the Canadian side of the border, it is evident that the American left is in the middle of a grand abdication. No American institution, no matter how wealthy or privileged, seems willing to make any sacrifice for democratic values. If the president is Tony Soprano, the Democratic governors who plead with Canadian tourists to return are the Carmelas. They cluck their disapproval, but they can’t believe anyone would question their decency as they try to get along.

Canada is far from powerless in this new world; we are educated and resourceful. But we are alone in a way we never have been. Our current moment of national self-definition is different from previous nationalisms. It will involve connecting Canada more broadly rather than narrowing its focus. We can show that multiculturalism works, that it remains possible to have an open society that does not consume itself, in which divisions between liberals and conservatives are real and deep-seated but do not fester into violence and loathing. Canada will also have to serve as a connector between the world’s democracies, in a line that stretches from Taiwan and South Korea, across North America, to Poland and Ukraine.

Canada has experienced the second Trump administration like a teenager being kicked out of the house by an abusive father. We have to grow up fast and we can’t go back. And the choices we make now will matter forever. They will reveal our national character. Anger is a useful emotion, but only as a point of departure. We have to reckon with the fact that from now on, our power will come from only ourselves.

Source: ‘Acute, Sustained, Profound and Abiding Rage’: Canada Finds Its Voice

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

USA: New Immigration Service Director May Pursue An Anti-Immigration Agenda

2025/08/08 Leave a comment

Incorrect title – not “may” but “will:”

The new director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will likely focus the agency on the Trump administration’s anti-immigration agenda. On July 15, 2025, Joseph Edlow began as USCIS director following a Senate confirmation vote along party lines. Edlow’s job will be to implement the policies of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. The agenda will include restricting asylum, directing adjudicators to tighten the approval process for immigration benefits applications and ending or controlling the ability of international students to work in the United States after graduating from U.S. universities.

USCIS Will Be An Immigration Enforcement Agency

In an opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation, Joseph Edlow said, “USCIS must be an immigration enforcement agency.” That sends a message to adjudicators: Treat applications similarly to those during Donald Trump’s first term, when denials increased and Requests for Evidence skyrocketed at USCIS.

In a question submitted to Edlow, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), the committee’s ranking member, wrote, “The Homeland Security Act does not include language stating that USCIS is an immigration enforcement agency. . . . The statute makes clear that unlike ICE and Customs and Border Protection, USCIS’s primary mission is adjudication and processing of applications, not enforcement. Will you retract your inaccurate statement that ‘USCIS must be an immigration enforcement agency?’” Edlow replied in writing, “No. The statement was not inaccurate as the adjudication of immigration benefits is inherently an act of enforcement of the immigration laws.”

Jon Wasden of Wasden Law said the USCIS transition from a “service” to an “enforcement” agency began under Barack Obama and intensified during Donald Trump’s first term. He notes that even during the Biden administration, USCIS continued to take funds and reallocate them to the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate within USCIS, which he believes violates the Homeland Security Act. Wasden is harsh in his assessment: “Both parties have created an environment where applicants are seen as the enemy, treated as criminals, and officers are above the law. I wish I could lay all this at the feet of Stephen Miller, but his Democrat predecessors share the blame.”

Still, USCIS differed significantly under Joe Biden compared to Trump’s first term. The Biden administration’s final rule on H-1B visas proved to be far more favorable for employers, universities and high-skilled foreign nationals than anything produced during the Trump years. Policy experts viewed the Trump administration’s interim final rule on H-1B visas, which a court blocked for violating the Administrative Procedure Act, as designed to prevent, or at least discourage, employers from using the H-1B category by narrowing eligibility and piling on requirements. A Department of Labor interim final rule would have priced many H-1B visa holders and employment-based immigrants out of the U.S. labor market by inflating the required salaries.

“Positive actions the Biden administration took on high-skilled immigration included taking steps to issue an ‘unprecedented’ number of employment-based green cards, increasing the validity of Employment Authorization Documents for up to five years, providing favorable guidance for O-1A visas and national interest waivers and making it easier for some employment-based green card applicants to stay if they have ‘compelling circumstances,” according to a National Foundation for American Policy analysis. “O-1A visa filings and requests for national interest waivers increased significantly after the new guidance.”

The NFAP analysis noted that the Trump administration carried out what judges found to be unlawful policies on H-1B visas for nearly four years. An H-1B is often the only practical way for a high-skilled foreign national, including an international student, to work long term in the United States. Denial rates for H-1B petitions for initial employment reached 24% in FY 2018 and 21% in FY 2019, compared to 6% in FY 2015. (H-1B petitions for “initial” employment are primarily for new employment, typically a case that would count against the H-1B annual limit.) Only lawsuits, court rulings and a legal settlement ended the policies.

Source: New Immigration Service Director May Pursue An Anti-Immigration Agenda

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration Tagged with , ,

Rempel Garner: Without national identity, integration is impossible and collapse is inevitable.

2025/08/02 Leave a comment

Always worth reading the Conservative take on immigration policy even when overly partisan and exaggerated in places. Some of her critiques have some merit but are weakened by being overstated. And to ignore broader trends on belonging and pinning everything on the Trudeau government is shallow at best:

…For example, on immigration, the Trudeau Liberals narrowed the age range for mandatory language and knowledge requirements in citizenship applications from 14-64 to 18-54, thus diminishing shared language’s role in Canadian identity for newcomers. They eliminated the in-person citizenship oath requirement. They sought to erase references to practices like female genital mutilation as abhorrent in the citizenship study guide, and in so doing, arguably normalized their importation into Canada. They turned a blind eye to judicial rulings allowing immigration status to factor into sentencing violent criminals, valuing the process of entry into the country over the responsibility associated with citizenship. They allowed Canada’s compassionate asylum system to be abused into a mockery.

The Trudeau Liberals also normalized the practice of the importation of conflicts from newcomer’s countries of origin, rather than primarily encouraging the shedding of these quarrels in favour of a pluralistic, unified Canadian identity rooted in Western democratic values. This phenomenon is best exemplified via the Trudeau government’s tolerance of diasporic lobby groups’ influence in elections and Canadian institutions, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to groups who sought to plant international conflicts and even terrorist principles in Canadian soil. And despite clear evidence of rising foreign interference in elections, the Liberals have yet to implement a foreign agent registry.

The Trudeau Liberals also prioritized cultural and ethnic differences over a shared ethos of equality in hiring and storytelling. For example, they embedded divisive, quasi-racist hiring policies into federal funding for educational institutions. They allowed Canada’s publicly funded national broadcaster to consider abandoning objectivity for racialized narratives, and now allocate news funding based on whether or not outlets sufficiently highlight ethnic, religious, and other group differences.

And rather than enlisting newcomers to help strengthen a cohesive Canadian national identity, such as by constructively addressing the nation’s historic injustices while simultaneously celebrating its positive achievements, the Trudeau Liberals actively erased symbols of shared historic Canadian identity from public view. They redesigned the Canadian passport to replace images of Canadian national heroes like Terry Fox with inert objects like a wheelbarrow. They supported activities that established the Canadian flag as a symbol of shame as opposed to a representation of patriotism. They worked to erase Canada’s founders from places of prominence.

Thus, Canada’s political left has profoundly succeeded in transforming Canada into a post-national no-nation, free from the trappings of a cohesive national identity.

For those who might argue that this is a good thing, they are very wrong. 

What Justin Trudeau overlooked in his Liberal government’s zealous pursuit of post-nationalism is that his father’s multicultural vision could only thrive under robust Western democratic institutions. Without a government prioritizing above all else, especially over partisan ideology, the safeguarding of principles like freedom of speech, secularism, and equality of opportunity, multiculturalism will inevitably destroy a peaceful, democratic pluralism.

The proof is in the pudding. Today in Canada, after decades of post-national, national identity-destroying policies, less than half of Canadian youth say they would fight for the country. This marks a startling shift from generations ago, when Canadians fought for what seemed to be immutable freedoms in the Great Wars. Diasporic conflicts now erupt on Canadian streets, hate crimes against ethnic and religious groups have surged, and the once-strong Canadian consensus on immigration is solidly broken.

If Canadians want to reverse the pluralism-destroying course post-nationalism has set us on, everyone, regardless of political stripe, must acknowledge that post-nationalism has eroded Canada’s national identity to point of non-existence. That state of affairs is likely the biggest threat to Canada’s sovereignty today.

History proves this conclusion correct. For a civilization to survive the test of history it needs some sort of cohesive shared identity. Without it, collapse occurs. There’s even examples to be found within Canada’s own evolution in the 20th century. In the early 1900s a Canadian national identity had taken root in spite of high levels of immigration. Forged in the crucibles of battlefields like Vimy Ridge, peoples of many backgrounds fought together as Canadians, united by shared values of democracy, rule of law, bilingualism, and loyalty to the Crown. To be Canadian then was to embrace English or French as a primary language, respect parliamentary institutions, and demonstrate civic duty through collective efforts in war and nation-building. 

Fast forward to today. Our domestic efforts fail to build critical national infrastructure and have allowed our military to atrophy to the point of near non-functionality. Our foreign policy rewards the tactics of terrorist organizations and abandons Western allies in times of crisis. Logic dictates that if the Liberal government continues eroding the Western democratic values that once, but arguably no longer, underpin Canada’s rapidly disappearing pluralistic national identity (freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and equality in the rule of law’s application), then collapse is what should be expected of Canada’s once-vaunted pluralism.

Those looking for remedy from new Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney will likely be sorely disappointed. Long an adherent to the World Economic Forum’s globalist brand of post-nationalism, the best definition of Canada’s national identity he has mustered is that we’re not the United States. His new “Minister of National Identity” Stephen Guilbeault managed an arguably worse response, offering pithiness like “I won’t stand here and pretend that I can tell you what Canadian identity is or should be,” while arguing there is “no one way to be Canadian.” That neither could define Canadian identity as rooted in shared respect for things like the rule of Western-based law, freedom of speech, freedom to worship, and equality of opportunity is telling.

The reality for Mr. Carney is that his government must reverse the many changes Mr. Trudeau made under his aggressive post-national doctrine to order to rebuild Canada’s national identity, prevent pluralism’s collapse, and retain our sovereignty.

If he fails, the effect will be the same as if he were to tip over Cardiff’s speakers in the National Gallery: a shameful and purposeful squandering of an intricate, delicate masterpiece.

Source: Without national identity, integration is impossible and collapse is inevitable.

Filed under Citizenship, Immigration, Multiculturalism Tagged with

Trump Administration Releases New Plans to Enforce Birthright Citizenship Order

2025/08/02 Leave a comment

Good overview:

Current Birthright Citizenship Rules vs. Proposed Changes

While the executive order is not yet in effect, recent documents from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the State Department, and the Social Security Administration (SSA) outline the administration’s intended approach. The proposed strategy involves implementing stricter requirements for parents to obtain U.S. passports, Social Security numbers (SSNs), and federal benefits for their U.S.-born children.

How It Currently Works

  • A child’s U.S. birth certificate is considered sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship, and parents can present it to the government to get a passport, SSN, and federal benefits for their child.
  • Parents don’t need to prove their own citizenship or immigration status when applying for these documents or benefits on their U.S.-born child’s behalf (except in cases involving foreign diplomats, who aren’t considered under U.S. jurisdiction).

How It Would Work Under the Proposed Plan

  • For any child born in the U.S. after the executive order’s effective date, their U.S. birth certificate alone is not considered sufficient proof of U.S. citizenship, and parents will need to provide additional documentation to obtain a passport, SSN, or federal benefits for their child.
  • At least one parent would need to prove their own citizenship or eligible immigration status when applying for these documents or benefits on their U.S.-born child’s behalf.
  • Federal agencies would verify parental status during or after birth registration.
  • Federal documents recognizing U.S. citizenship are not issued to children whose parents lack qualifying status.

“Ending birthright citizenship by fiat in contravention of several existing court challenges is an effort destined for failure. In the meantime, it will only create chaos and confusion in many households already struggling to navigate our broken immigration system.” — Erik Finch | Director of Global Operations, Boundless Immigration | Former USCIS Officer

Implications for Individuals and Families

Restricted birthright citizenship would have profound consequences on individuals and families:

  • Family Planning and Uncertainty: Legal ambiguities would likely deter many immigrant and mixed-status families from having children in the U.S., leading some to delay or reconsider building their families there.
  • Risk of Statelessness: Children denied citizenship at birth — especially if their parents’ home countries cannot confer nationality — could become stateless, facing lifelong barriers to education, healthcare, travel, and legal protection.
  • Reduced Access to Services: Even the threat of this policy’s implementation is likely to discourage families from seeking healthcare or essential public services, worsening health and welfare outcomes.
  • Bureaucratic and Legal Challenges: Stricter documentation rules could cause errors, delays, or denials, increasing stress and potential legal limbo for families.

Implications for Employers

Employers that depend on global talent could face serious challenges:

  • Recruitment and Retention: Uncertainty around children’s citizenship may deter skilled foreign professionals from working in or staying in the U.S.
  • HR Complexity and Compliance: Varied state laws could complicate HR, payroll, and benefits administration, requiring greater investment in immigration support for employees and their families.
  • Risk of Discrimination: Increased scrutiny of family and citizenship status raises the risk of accidental anti-discrimination violations and workplace unfairness.
  • Employee Wellbeing and Productivity: Ongoing anxiety about family status can lower morale, productivity, and long-term workforce stability, ultimately impacting company competitiveness.

Broader Social and Economic Implications

Fewer foreign-born residents and their U.S.-citizen children would reduce population diversity, shrink the workforce, and limit innovation. Communities of color — especially Latino families — would be disproportionately affected, deepening existing inequalities and creating long-term disparities. Over time, this could lead to a rise in U.S.-born individuals without legal status or statehood, increasing poverty, exclusion, and instability.

In addition, the proposed policy could expand the undocumented immigrant population, strain the U.S. immigration system, and fuel long-term political tension. Denying birthright citizenship risks alienating immigrant communities, weakening social cohesion, and creating a stateless underclass with limited access to education, jobs, and stability.

Even as a proposal, the policy has already sparked confusion and anxiety, leading some families to avoid essential services and underscoring the urgent need for clear guidance and community support.

Multiple court rulings have blocked the executive order, and it’s unclear if or when the administration’s plans will take effect. However, the government’s ongoing preparations suggests the issue will remain a priority for the Trump administration.


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and state attorneys general have called the order unconstitutional and vowed to continue fighting it in court. Immigration advocates have reassured families that, for now, children born in the U.S. remain U.S. citizens regardless of their parents’ status, and no immediate action is required.

Source: Trump Administration Releases New Plans to Enforce Birthright Citizenship Order

Filed under Birthright Citizenship, Citizenship Tagged with , , ,

Number of US expats to climb throughout 2025

2025/08/01 2 Comments

From the citizenship-by-investment marketing firm Aston’s. Still relatively small number for a country with such a large population of millionaires and ultra wealthy:

Number of US expats set to reach 5,000 per year in 2025

The latest analysis from Astons, reveals that the number of US citizens choosing to leave the States is forecast to hit almost 5,000 by the end of this year, marking the highest annual total since 2020.

Astons’ analysis of US Federal Register data* reveals that in 2024 an estimated 4,819 US citizens chose to expatriate themselves and settle in another country.

This marked an annual increase of 47.8%.

Further data shows that following this annual increase, the number of US expats has continued to increase at an incredibly sharp rate, with the first quarter of 2025 recording a rise of 102.4% compared to the final quarter of 2024.

This means that in the first three months of this year alone, an estimated 1,285 US citizens become expatriates.

Based on these recent trends, Astons’ now estimates that by the end of 2025, the total number of US citizens expatriating themselves will reach 4,936 – based on the most conservative of forecasts.

This will be equivalent to an annual increase of 2.4%, and mark the highest number of US citizens leaving America in a single year since 2020, the height of the pandemic.

Senior Consultant for Residency and Citizenship Programs at Astons, Suzanna Uzakova, commented:

“We’re seeing a significant shift in the mindset of affluent Americans who are no longer just looking to invest their money wisely, they’re actively seeking new homes and lifestyles beyond U.S. borders. The rising cost of living, political uncertainty, and a desire for greater personal freedoms are pushing many to explore permanent residency abroad.

Europe is especially attractive thanks to its quality of life, healthcare, and cultural richness. Among all European destinations, Greece has emerged as a standout choice — not just for its beauty, but for its accessible Golden Visa programme, favourable tax incentives, and lifestyle that blends luxury with a much sought-after simplicity.

The investment required to access Greece’s Golden Visa programme starts from just €250,000 provided it goes into real estate – making it one of the most affordable residency-by-investment routes in Europe. For many Americans, Greece offers the perfect balance: EU access, property investment potential, and a relaxed pace of life that feels a world away from the rush back home.”

Data tables and sources
*US expat data sourced from the US IRS (US Federal Register)

Full data tables can be viewed online, here.

Filed under Citizenship, citizenship-by-investment Tagged with ,

USA: Despite grand claims, a new report shows noncitizen voting hasn’t materialized

2025/07/31 Leave a comment

No surprise. Unfortunately, will not change many minds:

After President Trump and many other Republicans warned that vast numbers of non-U.S. citizens would influence last year’s election, states and law enforcement have devoted more resources than ever before to root out those ineligible voters.

More than six months into Trump’s second term, they haven’t found much.

New research out Wednesday tracking state government efforts across the country confirms what election experts have said all along: Noncitizen voting occasionally happens but in minuscule numbers, and not in any coordinated way.

“Noncitizens are not a large threat to our election system currently,” said David Becker, the executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research (CEIR), which conducted the research. “Even states that are looking everywhere to try to amplify the numbers of noncitizens … when they actually look, they find a surprisingly, shockingly small number.”

Source: Despite grand claims, a new report shows noncitizen voting hasn’t materialized

Filed under Citizenship Tagged with , ,

Canadian passport continues to plummet in power according to new global ranking. How does it compare to other countries?

2025/07/30 Leave a comment

What a silly, stupid and misleading headline, dropping one level hardly plummeting:

Over the last two decades, the Canadian passport has been one of the world’s strongest but a recent report suggests it is plummeting. 

Canada’s passport ties with Estonia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) at 8th place out of 199 in the world with visa-free access to 184 countries, according to the latest data from Henley Passport Index . 

The recent ranking shows the Canadian passport is down from seventh place since the last index update in January, losing visa-free access to four nations while seeing a much larger drop from Canada’s 2014 peak when it ranked second. 

Although the Canadian passport has consistently ranked within the top 10 globally, in recent years, other countries are gaining visa-free access to destinations quicker than Canada, which is among five countries to have seen the largest plunge in rankings over the past decade. 

Here’s how Canada’s passport ranks compared to other countries including the U.S. 

Which countries have the most powerful passports?

Singapore’s passport has once again topped the list allowing citizens to enter 193 destinations out of a possible 227 without a prior visa. On the other end of the spectrum, Afghanistan remains at the bottom of the list, with its passport gaining visa-free access to just 25 countries— a massive mobility gap of 168 countries compared to Singapore. 

Other Asian countries are also topping the list, with Japan and South Korea tied for second place, giving holders visa-free access to 190 countries. 

Seven European nations take the third spot with visa-free access to 189 countries, including Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Spain. The fourth and fifth places are also largely dominated by other European countries, but New Zealand is the one outlier who shares fifth place with Europe’s Greece and Switzerland. 

Since six months ago, India has seen the largest jump in ranking, shooting up from 85th place to 77th with citizens granted access to 59 visa-free destinations, but only gaining entrance to two additional countries. In the latest data, Saudi Arabian citizens can now travel to 91 countries after adding four destinations, making this the largest gain in visa-free access from all passports since the start of the year. 

Source: Canadian passport continues to plummet in power according to new global ranking. How does it compare to other countries?

Filed under Citizenship, Passports Tagged with

← Older posts

Newer posts →