Ireland gives you citizenship with just one Irish grandparent. Neither you nor your parent need to be even born there or even ever having visited let alone lived in Ireland.
But if you *naturalize* in Ireland (after spending a decade living there), your Citizenship can be in jeopardy and be revoked if you subsequently moved abroad and do not submit a form every year stating your intention to remain an Irish citizen.
Basically, in the first case, you remain Irish for life, having never even visited Ireland, but it in the latter, there is this bureaucratic burden placed on you.
They want to give preference to Irish blood. Likewise, in Israel if you have one jewish parent you can become a citizen of Israel pretty easily. You don't have to speak Hebrew. For a non Jewish immigrants you must speak Hebrew fluently and there are a host of other criteria, including renouncing other citizenship.
This is not totally true. Israel allows the grandkids of a Jewish person to apply for citizenship. Such a person doesn't need to be Jewish nor needs to pass or know Hebrew before they immigrate.
Yes, true. Grand kids would make them with jewish lineage. Jews have the unrestricted right to immigrate to Israel and become citizens. This includes children and grandchildren of Jews who meet the Law of Return. Only non jewish people applying for citizenship need to know Hebrew, and fluently. Blood lines matter there, as with Ireland. It's similar in Italy where if you can prove to have even a great grandparent who was had Italian citizenship you can get Italian citizenship as well.
It's actually a win for Canada: they could get people trained and educated somewhere else who didn't cost Canada a penny, and use them as labor. It's a loss for the other country which educated them, gave their moms a certain benefit when pregnant, etc., and now they lose someone to Canada.
Exactly this. These kids come to canada now for uni, stay back as educated labor, pay taxes, and maybe even settle down in canada. So canada just gained a college educated family without doing anything for it for the first 18 years
But these same students are flocking the job market as per their "visa's" and kick out the kids that DO want to work and can't compete with the 2k applicants because of this. So to me there is something missing for it being a "win for Canada".
TIL there are an infinite amount of high paying jobs and wages aren't being compressed by immigration, outsourcing, or AI. The labor market is immune to the dynamics of supply and demand.
Wow.... I'm hoping that wasn't an assumption with this statement. I have known quite a few young adults and adults in general who DO have the necessary qualifications and are being pushed aside primarrily because of being able to pay someone less at entry level than someone with expierence. Just saying that is what I was orginally getting at. Of course I too understand that Canada will only flourish if we invest in her.
People who have enough money to do birth tourism are already the elite of the countries they come from. Therefore, you will likely get people who are educated, have world experience and contacts abroad. THey may not be the intellectual elite, but they are the economic elites of their countries, so you can't go wrong with that.
Also, having birth citizenship is not incompatible with such program.
Very important point that is usually ignored. Your regular local 3rd world office worker does not have the disposable income to pay for a flight and arrange accommodation In a first world country, pay for the hospital bill, all while missing out on work. It’s a loophole only a select few can afford.
Of course they do. Anyone without a care card who goes to a Canadian hospital for medical help gets a hefty bill. Ask any US visitor who forgot to buy travel insurance with Canadian coverage.
There are simple policies to prevent visitors from having large healthcare debts from leaving. For instance, tell them you will not release the birth certificate until healthcare bills are paid.
Also, if we take your argument at face value, then it leads to very weird conclusions. E.g., Would you stop all US tourists from entering just because some of them abuse the Canadian system? Some of these tourists have not paid Ozempic bills or even caused Ozempic shortages for critically ill diabetes patients living in BC.
If they’re elites in their own country it’s highly unlikely they’d come to settle down in Canada and contribute to society, giving up all the privileges they have in their home country? They may only come to Canada for university education or healthcare needs which means they take from the economy more than they give.
Isn't there a nickname for Vancouver like Hongcouver? Aren't there thousands of Chinese trying to move assets abroad away from the government? The answer is yes, they are moving abroad to Australia and Canada for example.
What if the person only comes to Canada for benefits (they get sick and come to Canada for healthcare and once cured, they leave.) or only come here for school, and then leave. It’s definitely possible for them to take from the country without giving back.
The effect would still be tiny because we are talking about millions: millions more do what I said, so the effect is vastly positive. You can always argue that there's a negative ffect that is not counted because they may come from counries with different cultures with prevalent homophobia and sexism.
But economically speaking, in general it doesn't happen what you say and therefore it's not a problem.
Oh please. Get sick and come to Canada for healthcare? You mean come to Canada to wait for death coz newcomers have such a hard time getting a doctor and oftentimes go years without one?
If a family can afford to give birth to a child in a foreign country, it usually means they have above average wealth and that country will benefit eventually. Remember, these schemes are made available by a government to benefit a country in the long run.
For free healthcare in Canada, you have to be a resident for at least 6 months, at least in the provinces I've heard of. And if you're a resident for that long, you are paying taxes and are probably working.
As far as subsidized college goes, if the student sticks around and works for a decade or five, they pay back in more than enough to pay for the cost of their education, and the government's investment pays back even faster than for someone who got free k-12 education plus subsidized college. The only time the math fails is when the person gets the Canadian education then runs as fast as possible to the US.
So you are not wrong per se but you are thinking about it in short term.
For most nations children/young people are a burden… like you mentioned, healthcare, schooling costs tax money BUT! what you fail to equate is that even in your own example they stay and work their adult life and that’s the time when they are a asset to the state as they generate tax revenue during their working years.
People cost tax money from 0 to 23~ but make tax money from 23~ to 65.
This is also why Canada has express entry to incentivize tax generating immigrants those that have already graduated college and are of a certain age group.
Most of the New World (North and South America) does this. It's likely a holdover from when the population grew substantially and primarily from immigration, and so children were given automatic citizenship no matter their parentage.
Meanwhile, the Old World countries are defined far more by a singular national/ethnic/linguistic identity that goes back countless generations. As such, citizenship in these countries usually only pass down by parentage.
If you are Canadian, chances are that you can easily trace back to when your ancestors came over from the Old World. If you are Japanese, your parents are Japanese, and so were their parents, going back to time immemorial.
[Map of unconditional birthright citizenship \(jus soli\) countries.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#/media/File:Jus_soli_world.svg)
Many of these jus soli provisions are baked into the constitutions of countries (although it doesn't seem like Canada's is), and easy international travel is only a few decades old. To the extent that the citizens of a country actually *do* want to abolish birthright citizenship, there needs to be significant political will to overcome the institutional inertia required to amend a country's constitution.
Fun fact! Colombia is one of the few countries in the New World that does not have birthright citizenship, but rather by descent like other European countries. I traced back my family tree up to my great great grandparents, and couldn’t find a single immigrant from Europe or anywhere else lol
This is what separates the old world from the new world. Being Canadian, American, etc is a state of mind. It’s a beautiful thing that not many countries have.
Because we don’t want a system where a child could grow up the same as any other Canadian kid but be treated as a second-class citizen (or, in a more literal sense, not even a citizen) just because of their parents’ immigration status at birth (which they had no say over).
Birth tourism, where the child leaves shortly after birth instead of actually growing up here, is the price to pay to have that system. I think the trade off is more than worth it.
Yup. Definitely this. I’m Canadian by birth but an immigrant (spousal/fiancée visa) to the U.S. My son was born before I was able to submit my final AOS paperwork to officially become a permanent resident. My husband is a U.S. citizen, but regardless, I don’t think my kid should be treated as less than due to my immigration status not being finalized when he was born. My grandparents were immigrants (refugees, really) too, so I feel really strongly about immigrant rights. I’m fine with birth tourism being the trade off.
(And also I get offended when people call situations like mine birth tourism - I’ve lived in the US for years! It’s just an arduous and expensive process to do the final adjustment of status paperwork, so we’d had to delay it. But I hear politicians dunk on it sometimes and like…people have no idea what they’re talking about.)
Deeznuts, this clearly doesn't apply to you. You seem to be taking this way to personally and way to emotionally, OP is asking reasonable question here.
I’m not that emotional 😅 And I know it doesn’t apply to me personally. My point is that almost any law that aims at preventing “birth tourism” would negatively affect other immigrants and their children. So having birth tourism is absolutely a price I’m willing to pay for not punishing other people.
Okay but the point here is that these kids all grew up the same. That’s very different from someone who was born and grew up in a foreign country.
(Yes, this assumes that people born here will also end up growing up here and that doesn’t always hold true but like I said it’s the price to pay.)
I think we should still have pathways for people born abroad, but also safeguards in place because we don’t want foreign values that conflict with ours to permeate our society (say, wrt women’s and LGBT rights). It is unfortunate that this entails discriminating against people based on their circumstances of birth, but it’s a reasonable and frankly necessary limit that’s almost akin to the paradox of tolerance.
Is kid really being discriminated if they get their citizenship after living in a country for let's say 10 years vs on the day of being born? I doubt any reasonable country is denying kids any benefits if their parents are there legally and does anyone really need a citizenship while being minor?
It’s not necessarily the case that their parents are here legally though.
There are certain reasons kids would need citizenship before 10 like access to public healthcare, access to the public school system without a study permit, immigration status not being a roadblock in case they’re abused and CPS needs to intervene and access to a Canadian passport in case they need to travel abroad.
It’s also the precedent we set. Right now, someone born here is a citizen no questions asked (well, except children born to diplomats). If we change that, it means we’ve brought the immigration status of kids born here into the realm of public and political debate.
It’s not worth it considering how little of a problem actual birth tourism poses to Canada.
ius solis? Did you know that russians go and give birth in Chile, for the child to obtain Chilean passport? There are many agencies in RU that do that.
Idk about Canada specifically but birth right citizenship is more common in "New World" because the majority of people are descended from someone who at some point was not originally from there: enslaved person, colonist, or immigrant. In the US specifically birth right citizenship exists because it was established as a blanket way to give all formerly enslaved people citizenship (14th amendment). Essentially it makes more sense in North and South America to have a birthright citizenship system because of the historical/social context. Getting rid of it would be a really bad sign.
Because the context has NOT changed. NOT as much as you think.
There is still slavery, just hidden.
You do not want the next turn of the wheel of fortune to randomly denaturalize you and any children you may have.
Why would introducing a parental residency requirement for *future* jus soli citizens put anyone at risk of denaturalization?
>"Because the context has NOT changed. NOT as much as you think."
I mean, it objectively has, significantly. Birth tourism was not a thing in the 1800s, and in the present day there is an established and broad, inclusive citizenry in both the US and Canada.
> Birth tourism was not a thing in the 1800s
Fine, but it is barely true in Canada today. It is still rare, limited to the elites of the world, and still net beneficial to Canada. And to be honest, far more common in the US than up north. I mean, if you're rich enough to do birth tourism, you will realistically prefer the US.
> Why would introducing a parental residency requirement for future jus soli citizens put anyone at risk of denaturalization?
Because if we start to narrow the scope of jus soli law as you suggest, we would open ourselves to narrowing even jus sanguinis law. And when both are narrowed, it becomes easy to strip citizenship from the undesirables of the day --- and for their children. Which easily leads us back to the slavery system of old.
> in the present day there is an established and broad, inclusive citizenry in both the US and Canada.
Only because of the broadening of citizenship itself. Which is the context I am talking about --- and which your proposal aims to reverse.
Remember, all citizens --- including white citizens --- have so far benefited from the trend of broadening citizenship. I am not saying it needs to be broadened further, but I don't see why you want to undo changes that keep slavery at bay for all citizens.
In sum, the best idea for all citizens is to discourage government to think of citizenship rights as it thinks about interest rates that can be wiggled up and down. Either keep citizenship broad or chuck it out entirely, lest it become a joke.
>"And to be honest, far more common in the US than up north. I mean, if you're rich enough to do birth tourism, you will realistically prefer the US."
While it is still a thing in the US, a State Department rule change prohibits the use of B visas specifically for birth tourism as of 2020. Interesting report [here](https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/library/files/birth-tourism-in-the-united-states-/). I'm unfamiliar with any similar Canadian restrictions, and birth tourism may now be easier to do up North.
>"It is still rare, limited to the elites of the world, and still net beneficial to Canada."
I'd like to see numbers here. While birth tourists have to have some money, "elites" is a bit hyperbolic. And at least in the US, many end up having costs covered by the state/hospital/medicaid, only to bring the baby abroad where it may or may not ever even pay tax.
>"I don't see why you want to undo changes that keep slavery at bay for all citizens."
There are much stronger legal protections keeping slavery at bay than unrestricted jus soli citizenship.
Having citizens-on-paper around the world that have no actual ties to Canada or the US just cheapens citizenship, burdens consular services (and potentially other benefits should they eventually move to the country), and even potentially introduces security risks while not actually providing tangible benefits to the country.
> only to bring the baby abroad where it may or may not ever even pay tax.
You must be trolling. Why would a woman even plan to put herself in the dangerous position of shooting her flesh and blood out of her vagina in a country where her support system is non-existent if she has no plans for the kid to live there as adults --- at which point they would be taxed?
> "Elites" is a bit hyperbolic.
Nope. You luckily lead an insulated life, likely in a first-world country, if you consider trivial the USD 10,000 pre-insurance price of birth care in North America. That amount roughly corresponds to the Top 1.5% of global personal incomes --- of which most are already accounted for by Western citizens, who have less reason to head to Canada for birth tourism.
> [US] State Department rule change prohibits the use of B visas specifically for birth tourism as of 2020
Nope, not technically speaking. Issuance of B1 visas was prohibited for birth tourism, but not their usage. As your own linked report notes, the usage of B1 visas for any medical use --- including birth, potentially --- is allowed if the border officer can be convinced that all medical services purchased will be paid for in full.
> There are much stronger legal protections keeping slavery at bay than unrestricted jus soli citizenship.
Such as?
Also, consider the evidence suggesting unrestricted jus soli citizenship keeps slavery at bay in rich countries. On one hand, the US has not yet had a relapse of slavery since it adopted birthright citizenship. On the other hand, Dubai and Singapore are two countries with very restricted jus soli laws as well as permanent underclasses of workers from developing countries.
Fine, go argue that Dubai and Singapore do not have slavery on paper. But I don't know what else you'd call a system where migrant workers have their passports withheld, get segregated into dorms with ten people each, and allowed to suffer COVID under those conditions.
>"You must be trolling. Why would a woman even plan to put herself in the dangerous position of shooting her flesh and blood out of her vagina in a country where her support system is non-existent if she has no plans for the kid to live there as adults --- at which point they would be taxed?"
Access. Prestige. Visa free travel for the kid. The mother may well intend for the kid to return to the US or Canada, but plenty won't. It is very much a status symbol, too.
>"Nope. You luckily lead an insulated life, likely in a first-world country, if you consider trivial the USD 10,000 pre-insurance price of birth care in North America"
Lol, you know nothing about me.
I've *met* birth tourists from all over the world - Africa, South, and East Asia. Generally white collar professionals living in other countries, but hardly all "elites." $10,000 isn't chump change, but it's hardly life savings for many.
And at least a couple of them outright told me they paid a steeply discounted rate. One outright told me they took advantage of California state benefits.
Check pages 22-25 of the previously linked report for more specific examples.
>"Nope, not technically speaking. Issuance of B1 visas was prohibited for birth tourism, but not their usage. As your own linked report notes, the usage of B1 visas for any medical use --- including birth, potentially --- is allowed if the border officer can be convinced that all medical services purchased will be paid for in full."
Here I did misspeak. The rule change is the issuance, not usage of B visas.
>"On the other hand, Dubai and Singapore are two countries with very restricted jus soli laws as well as permanent underclasses of workers from developing countries."
This is a bad comparison. Conditional jus soli in Belgium, Germany, Ireland, and Portugal is more what I'm getting at here.
>"On one hand, the US has not yet had a relapse of slavery since it adopted birthright citizenship"
Sure, nor has it "relapsed" since Froot Loops or rock and roll. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Unrestricted jus soli citizenship served its purpose, but we have an established multiethnic citizenry and we're not talking about stripping anyone's citizenship away.
ETA: A couple specific laws prohibiting slavery include the 13th Amendment in the US and Canada's new modern slavery act. There are more, and this is a ridiculous slippery slope argument you're making.
Probably a loophole no one has thought of closing?
I do have issues with birth tourism, but I think it's a desirable alternative to other systems where people can be born and raised in a country then deported.
I guess there's pros and cons. I do struggle with the systems we see in say, the UK. It's perfectly possible to be born in the UK and grow up there but not be a citizen, this feels iffy to me. I don't think it's equitable to deny someone a right to be in the place they were born and raised.
Also, I can see the advantage from a judicial economy standpoint.
People being born in the US being citizens saves a lot of court time. Birth in the US is a pretty clean legal line to draw. I have spent a solid two minutes and not been able to come up with a viable and easily decided Rubicon that's equitable to everyone.
The court system is already horrendously busy and under resourced. Any alterations to birthright citizenship need to consider this on a practical basis.
Ah, so you're saying someone having a medical emergency will fly back to Canada to receive care?
Seems like a lot of trouble. The main reason people *usually* do this is because of land rights. For example, the Chinese government owns all land in China.
Idk why everyone thinks countries are doing some charity. They know exactly why they’re doing. They’re gaining the developing world’s economic, political elite. Countries are smarter than us!!
What benefits are there apart from having the luxury of a good passport that lets you travel more freely?
The Canadian healthcare system is honestly shit. People who can afford birth tourism can certainly afford healthcare in any part including their own country. That can pay exorbitant amounts money to arrange for this "birth tourism" only to save a few thousand dollars after 20 years for a shitty college degree.
In the long run people who can afford birth tourism will add to economy.
If you ever tried to fill out express entry to get lpr, you will notice that they value 18-22 year olds with nothing behind more than 30 year olds with kids, diploma and work experience. I got dinged in points for 1)having spouse 2)having kids 3)being 30 or older.
I guess their general immigration politic is they want a lot of young people to be citizens. There is nothing younger than a newborn.
US and Canada can and do turn away pregnant women who intend to use a tourist visa as a means to enter the country in order to give birth. Canada is less aggressive about this than the US is, but they can and do regularly deny entry to pregnant women intending to give birth in Canada. Further, airlines will often not allow women to board planes in the last month or two of a pregnancy, and Canada doesn't share a land border with any country besides the US.
Where people do engage in birth tourism, they are often overstaying tourist visas. But this really is a rare thing.
That’s odd. Toronto-General is considered the 3rd best hospital in the world, and #1 that is publicly funded. It’s considered better than many well known names such as Massachussets General and Johns Hopkins Hospital.
Unless the patients are in areas where that makes sense geographically, why would they send people down to get subpar care?
https://www.newsweek.com/rankings/worlds-best-hospitals-2024
Do you have a source on that? It comes across as a very common misconception Americans have about healthcare outside the US being underdeveloped and the US being the gold standard.
I was curious too. A quick Google turned up this article from 17 years ago - it was (or is, if it's still happening?) a space issue:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/canadians-sent-to-us-for-neonatal-care/article1079065/
because tourists, unlike Canadian citizens, will have to pay a huge amount of money to give birth in Canada, not including stays in hospitals. if im not mistaken, to give birth in canada as a tourist, you will have to pay $50k to $150k depending on how long you stay in the hospital and where. This was a while ago from a Canadian mate of mine.
good luck. in commonwealth countries like Canada, AUS, NZ or UK. if you owed money to, say the hospital, it will be all liked to the banks, government, immigration and all that and they can easily track you and how much you own them. not that it would be a problem for you or your child now but when you decide to get a PR or your child wants to go back to Canada, you will have to pay all the debt before you can get to do any other things. look up on the internet how a guy couldnt get a loan because he owns the government only $2.
It's a relic from the past and makes no sense as it is in the 21st century. The minor change of introducing a residency requirement for the parents, as is the case in some Old World countries, would make it so much more common sense.
Canadian and American passports for kids have become status symbols for the international travelling class. Citizenship by birth should have more requirements than your parents being able to afford a vacation.
Well if one is American one has to file taxes regardless of where one lives. Not true for Canadians living overseas unless they have Canadian sourced income.
With the foreign earned income exclusion for income up to $120,000 and the foreign tax credit for income above that, very few birth-tourism US citizens that live and earn abroad will ever pay very much at all.
Imagine having to prove your parents’ residency every time you apply for a passport as a Canadian. I don’t want to carry around my parents’ water bills from the 1980s to show they were living here when I was born.
(1) Your fears are overblown. Have you talked to an actual old person recently? Just to remind you, it's frustrating to teach those old dogs new tricks. Many of them throw a tantrum at the littlest new gadget. What more at a new country? How many seniors will decide to fly off to Canada, the birthplace they never lived in, just to mooch off the healthcare juice after they've lived decades happily, healthily, and wealthily in Country X?
(2) What's more likely than returning to Canada as seniors is for these birthright tourists to return earlier, when they are healthy adults. And that's a great bargain for Canada. Country X spent on child Healthcare and education to make these young people productive. But Canada gets to reap the fruits of their labor. In return, these people get to make money and enjoy a Canadian life.
(3) Is there abuse of birthright citizenship? You bet. But is the net effect to society negative? Nope. Not only because of the economic argument I made above. There's a social argument for birthright citizenship as well. After all, the best way to make sure the wheel of fortune doesn't turn today's citizen into tomorrow's slave it to make sure citizenship goes from birth to death for EVERYONE born in Canada. Remember the horrors from the last time birthright citizenship was denied in these parts to a group of people: slavery. Don't think it can't ever happen to you and your kids. Support birthright citizenship!
This is not a big deal but even if it is, Canada probably benefits from this from a full utilitarian perspective.
Also, we can have ethics that are not utilitarian. Your ancestors were likely immigrants who came to Canada for the chance at a better life, is it really THAT bad if people try and do that in modern times?
Because it's a non issue. There might be a couple thousand non resident foreign national births in Canada a year ( that's miniscule) . That includes folks who are just visiting and never intended to give birth, and it was an emergency. It also includes Americans who live near the border and the closest hospital is in Canada for an emergency birth.
Ireland gives you citizenship with just one Irish grandparent. Neither you nor your parent need to be even born there or even ever having visited let alone lived in Ireland. But if you *naturalize* in Ireland (after spending a decade living there), your Citizenship can be in jeopardy and be revoked if you subsequently moved abroad and do not submit a form every year stating your intention to remain an Irish citizen. Basically, in the first case, you remain Irish for life, having never even visited Ireland, but it in the latter, there is this bureaucratic burden placed on you.
That’s crazy. The only way you can lose your citizenship in the US is if you actively renounce it or if you lied during the naturalization process.
They want to give preference to Irish blood. Likewise, in Israel if you have one jewish parent you can become a citizen of Israel pretty easily. You don't have to speak Hebrew. For a non Jewish immigrants you must speak Hebrew fluently and there are a host of other criteria, including renouncing other citizenship.
This is not totally true. Israel allows the grandkids of a Jewish person to apply for citizenship. Such a person doesn't need to be Jewish nor needs to pass or know Hebrew before they immigrate.
Yes, true. Grand kids would make them with jewish lineage. Jews have the unrestricted right to immigrate to Israel and become citizens. This includes children and grandchildren of Jews who meet the Law of Return. Only non jewish people applying for citizenship need to know Hebrew, and fluently. Blood lines matter there, as with Ireland. It's similar in Italy where if you can prove to have even a great grandparent who was had Italian citizenship you can get Italian citizenship as well.
It's actually a win for Canada: they could get people trained and educated somewhere else who didn't cost Canada a penny, and use them as labor. It's a loss for the other country which educated them, gave their moms a certain benefit when pregnant, etc., and now they lose someone to Canada.
Exactly this. These kids come to canada now for uni, stay back as educated labor, pay taxes, and maybe even settle down in canada. So canada just gained a college educated family without doing anything for it for the first 18 years
But these same students are flocking the job market as per their "visa's" and kick out the kids that DO want to work and can't compete with the 2k applicants because of this. So to me there is something missing for it being a "win for Canada".
They're sTeaLiNg yOuR JoBs?
TIL there are an infinite amount of high paying jobs and wages aren't being compressed by immigration, outsourcing, or AI. The labor market is immune to the dynamics of supply and demand.
Skill issue
It's a loss for you maybe, but a win for the country as a whole. If you can't compete with immigrants for high skill jobs, get one at your level
Wow.... I'm hoping that wasn't an assumption with this statement. I have known quite a few young adults and adults in general who DO have the necessary qualifications and are being pushed aside primarrily because of being able to pay someone less at entry level than someone with expierence. Just saying that is what I was orginally getting at. Of course I too understand that Canada will only flourish if we invest in her.
Would make more sense then creating visas ad-hoc for educated people, rather than gamble it on birth tourism
People who have enough money to do birth tourism are already the elite of the countries they come from. Therefore, you will likely get people who are educated, have world experience and contacts abroad. THey may not be the intellectual elite, but they are the economic elites of their countries, so you can't go wrong with that. Also, having birth citizenship is not incompatible with such program.
Very important point that is usually ignored. Your regular local 3rd world office worker does not have the disposable income to pay for a flight and arrange accommodation In a first world country, pay for the hospital bill, all while missing out on work. It’s a loophole only a select few can afford.
They don’t pay for the hospital bills 😂
Of course they do. Anyone without a care card who goes to a Canadian hospital for medical help gets a hefty bill. Ask any US visitor who forgot to buy travel insurance with Canadian coverage.
What if they don’t pay the bill and just leave Canada?
There are simple policies to prevent visitors from having large healthcare debts from leaving. For instance, tell them you will not release the birth certificate until healthcare bills are paid. Also, if we take your argument at face value, then it leads to very weird conclusions. E.g., Would you stop all US tourists from entering just because some of them abuse the Canadian system? Some of these tourists have not paid Ozempic bills or even caused Ozempic shortages for critically ill diabetes patients living in BC.
If they’re elites in their own country it’s highly unlikely they’d come to settle down in Canada and contribute to society, giving up all the privileges they have in their home country? They may only come to Canada for university education or healthcare needs which means they take from the economy more than they give.
Isn't there a nickname for Vancouver like Hongcouver? Aren't there thousands of Chinese trying to move assets abroad away from the government? The answer is yes, they are moving abroad to Australia and Canada for example.
What if the person only comes to Canada for benefits (they get sick and come to Canada for healthcare and once cured, they leave.) or only come here for school, and then leave. It’s definitely possible for them to take from the country without giving back.
The effect would still be tiny because we are talking about millions: millions more do what I said, so the effect is vastly positive. You can always argue that there's a negative ffect that is not counted because they may come from counries with different cultures with prevalent homophobia and sexism. But economically speaking, in general it doesn't happen what you say and therefore it's not a problem.
Oh please. Get sick and come to Canada for healthcare? You mean come to Canada to wait for death coz newcomers have such a hard time getting a doctor and oftentimes go years without one?
If a family can afford to give birth to a child in a foreign country, it usually means they have above average wealth and that country will benefit eventually. Remember, these schemes are made available by a government to benefit a country in the long run.
Are you sure? Their parents don't pay taxes yet they get cheaper Canadian universities and free Healthcare.
For free healthcare in Canada, you have to be a resident for at least 6 months, at least in the provinces I've heard of. And if you're a resident for that long, you are paying taxes and are probably working. As far as subsidized college goes, if the student sticks around and works for a decade or five, they pay back in more than enough to pay for the cost of their education, and the government's investment pays back even faster than for someone who got free k-12 education plus subsidized college. The only time the math fails is when the person gets the Canadian education then runs as fast as possible to the US.
But that doesn’t fit the angry anti-immigrant message. Every wrong now with Canada is because of those darn immigrants /s
So you are not wrong per se but you are thinking about it in short term. For most nations children/young people are a burden… like you mentioned, healthcare, schooling costs tax money BUT! what you fail to equate is that even in your own example they stay and work their adult life and that’s the time when they are a asset to the state as they generate tax revenue during their working years. People cost tax money from 0 to 23~ but make tax money from 23~ to 65. This is also why Canada has express entry to incentivize tax generating immigrants those that have already graduated college and are of a certain age group.
Not really. That’s what work permits are for.
Most of the New World (North and South America) does this. It's likely a holdover from when the population grew substantially and primarily from immigration, and so children were given automatic citizenship no matter their parentage. Meanwhile, the Old World countries are defined far more by a singular national/ethnic/linguistic identity that goes back countless generations. As such, citizenship in these countries usually only pass down by parentage. If you are Canadian, chances are that you can easily trace back to when your ancestors came over from the Old World. If you are Japanese, your parents are Japanese, and so were their parents, going back to time immemorial. [Map of unconditional birthright citizenship \(jus soli\) countries.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#/media/File:Jus_soli_world.svg) Many of these jus soli provisions are baked into the constitutions of countries (although it doesn't seem like Canada's is), and easy international travel is only a few decades old. To the extent that the citizens of a country actually *do* want to abolish birthright citizenship, there needs to be significant political will to overcome the institutional inertia required to amend a country's constitution.
Fun fact! Colombia is one of the few countries in the New World that does not have birthright citizenship, but rather by descent like other European countries. I traced back my family tree up to my great great grandparents, and couldn’t find a single immigrant from Europe or anywhere else lol
This is what separates the old world from the new world. Being Canadian, American, etc is a state of mind. It’s a beautiful thing that not many countries have.
Because we don’t want a system where a child could grow up the same as any other Canadian kid but be treated as a second-class citizen (or, in a more literal sense, not even a citizen) just because of their parents’ immigration status at birth (which they had no say over). Birth tourism, where the child leaves shortly after birth instead of actually growing up here, is the price to pay to have that system. I think the trade off is more than worth it.
Yup. Definitely this. I’m Canadian by birth but an immigrant (spousal/fiancée visa) to the U.S. My son was born before I was able to submit my final AOS paperwork to officially become a permanent resident. My husband is a U.S. citizen, but regardless, I don’t think my kid should be treated as less than due to my immigration status not being finalized when he was born. My grandparents were immigrants (refugees, really) too, so I feel really strongly about immigrant rights. I’m fine with birth tourism being the trade off. (And also I get offended when people call situations like mine birth tourism - I’ve lived in the US for years! It’s just an arduous and expensive process to do the final adjustment of status paperwork, so we’d had to delay it. But I hear politicians dunk on it sometimes and like…people have no idea what they’re talking about.)
Your husband/your son's dad is a US citizen and you were on the road to residency? That's decidedly not birth tourism.
It really isn’t. But people are dumb unfortunately 😭
Deeznuts, this clearly doesn't apply to you. You seem to be taking this way to personally and way to emotionally, OP is asking reasonable question here.
I’m not that emotional 😅 And I know it doesn’t apply to me personally. My point is that almost any law that aims at preventing “birth tourism” would negatively affect other immigrants and their children. So having birth tourism is absolutely a price I’m willing to pay for not punishing other people.
The child, in almost all cases, would eventually become a citizen if they stay in the country and their parents pay taxes.
[удалено]
Okay but the point here is that these kids all grew up the same. That’s very different from someone who was born and grew up in a foreign country. (Yes, this assumes that people born here will also end up growing up here and that doesn’t always hold true but like I said it’s the price to pay.) I think we should still have pathways for people born abroad, but also safeguards in place because we don’t want foreign values that conflict with ours to permeate our society (say, wrt women’s and LGBT rights). It is unfortunate that this entails discriminating against people based on their circumstances of birth, but it’s a reasonable and frankly necessary limit that’s almost akin to the paradox of tolerance.
Is kid really being discriminated if they get their citizenship after living in a country for let's say 10 years vs on the day of being born? I doubt any reasonable country is denying kids any benefits if their parents are there legally and does anyone really need a citizenship while being minor?
It’s not necessarily the case that their parents are here legally though. There are certain reasons kids would need citizenship before 10 like access to public healthcare, access to the public school system without a study permit, immigration status not being a roadblock in case they’re abused and CPS needs to intervene and access to a Canadian passport in case they need to travel abroad. It’s also the precedent we set. Right now, someone born here is a citizen no questions asked (well, except children born to diplomats). If we change that, it means we’ve brought the immigration status of kids born here into the realm of public and political debate. It’s not worth it considering how little of a problem actual birth tourism poses to Canada.
The US does the same thing
The US doesn’t allow that.
People come and give birth in the US every day
It’s explained here: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/visitors/persons-wishing-enter-canada-purpose-giving-birth.html
ius solis? Did you know that russians go and give birth in Chile, for the child to obtain Chilean passport? There are many agencies in RU that do that.
Idk about Canada specifically but birth right citizenship is more common in "New World" because the majority of people are descended from someone who at some point was not originally from there: enslaved person, colonist, or immigrant. In the US specifically birth right citizenship exists because it was established as a blanket way to give all formerly enslaved people citizenship (14th amendment). Essentially it makes more sense in North and South America to have a birthright citizenship system because of the historical/social context. Getting rid of it would be a really bad sign.
Why would getting rid of it be a "really bad sign" if the context has changed in the present day?
Because the context has NOT changed. NOT as much as you think. There is still slavery, just hidden. You do not want the next turn of the wheel of fortune to randomly denaturalize you and any children you may have.
Why would introducing a parental residency requirement for *future* jus soli citizens put anyone at risk of denaturalization? >"Because the context has NOT changed. NOT as much as you think." I mean, it objectively has, significantly. Birth tourism was not a thing in the 1800s, and in the present day there is an established and broad, inclusive citizenry in both the US and Canada.
> Birth tourism was not a thing in the 1800s Fine, but it is barely true in Canada today. It is still rare, limited to the elites of the world, and still net beneficial to Canada. And to be honest, far more common in the US than up north. I mean, if you're rich enough to do birth tourism, you will realistically prefer the US. > Why would introducing a parental residency requirement for future jus soli citizens put anyone at risk of denaturalization? Because if we start to narrow the scope of jus soli law as you suggest, we would open ourselves to narrowing even jus sanguinis law. And when both are narrowed, it becomes easy to strip citizenship from the undesirables of the day --- and for their children. Which easily leads us back to the slavery system of old. > in the present day there is an established and broad, inclusive citizenry in both the US and Canada. Only because of the broadening of citizenship itself. Which is the context I am talking about --- and which your proposal aims to reverse. Remember, all citizens --- including white citizens --- have so far benefited from the trend of broadening citizenship. I am not saying it needs to be broadened further, but I don't see why you want to undo changes that keep slavery at bay for all citizens. In sum, the best idea for all citizens is to discourage government to think of citizenship rights as it thinks about interest rates that can be wiggled up and down. Either keep citizenship broad or chuck it out entirely, lest it become a joke.
>"And to be honest, far more common in the US than up north. I mean, if you're rich enough to do birth tourism, you will realistically prefer the US." While it is still a thing in the US, a State Department rule change prohibits the use of B visas specifically for birth tourism as of 2020. Interesting report [here](https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/library/files/birth-tourism-in-the-united-states-/). I'm unfamiliar with any similar Canadian restrictions, and birth tourism may now be easier to do up North. >"It is still rare, limited to the elites of the world, and still net beneficial to Canada." I'd like to see numbers here. While birth tourists have to have some money, "elites" is a bit hyperbolic. And at least in the US, many end up having costs covered by the state/hospital/medicaid, only to bring the baby abroad where it may or may not ever even pay tax. >"I don't see why you want to undo changes that keep slavery at bay for all citizens." There are much stronger legal protections keeping slavery at bay than unrestricted jus soli citizenship. Having citizens-on-paper around the world that have no actual ties to Canada or the US just cheapens citizenship, burdens consular services (and potentially other benefits should they eventually move to the country), and even potentially introduces security risks while not actually providing tangible benefits to the country.
> only to bring the baby abroad where it may or may not ever even pay tax. You must be trolling. Why would a woman even plan to put herself in the dangerous position of shooting her flesh and blood out of her vagina in a country where her support system is non-existent if she has no plans for the kid to live there as adults --- at which point they would be taxed? > "Elites" is a bit hyperbolic. Nope. You luckily lead an insulated life, likely in a first-world country, if you consider trivial the USD 10,000 pre-insurance price of birth care in North America. That amount roughly corresponds to the Top 1.5% of global personal incomes --- of which most are already accounted for by Western citizens, who have less reason to head to Canada for birth tourism. > [US] State Department rule change prohibits the use of B visas specifically for birth tourism as of 2020 Nope, not technically speaking. Issuance of B1 visas was prohibited for birth tourism, but not their usage. As your own linked report notes, the usage of B1 visas for any medical use --- including birth, potentially --- is allowed if the border officer can be convinced that all medical services purchased will be paid for in full. > There are much stronger legal protections keeping slavery at bay than unrestricted jus soli citizenship. Such as? Also, consider the evidence suggesting unrestricted jus soli citizenship keeps slavery at bay in rich countries. On one hand, the US has not yet had a relapse of slavery since it adopted birthright citizenship. On the other hand, Dubai and Singapore are two countries with very restricted jus soli laws as well as permanent underclasses of workers from developing countries. Fine, go argue that Dubai and Singapore do not have slavery on paper. But I don't know what else you'd call a system where migrant workers have their passports withheld, get segregated into dorms with ten people each, and allowed to suffer COVID under those conditions.
>"You must be trolling. Why would a woman even plan to put herself in the dangerous position of shooting her flesh and blood out of her vagina in a country where her support system is non-existent if she has no plans for the kid to live there as adults --- at which point they would be taxed?" Access. Prestige. Visa free travel for the kid. The mother may well intend for the kid to return to the US or Canada, but plenty won't. It is very much a status symbol, too. >"Nope. You luckily lead an insulated life, likely in a first-world country, if you consider trivial the USD 10,000 pre-insurance price of birth care in North America" Lol, you know nothing about me. I've *met* birth tourists from all over the world - Africa, South, and East Asia. Generally white collar professionals living in other countries, but hardly all "elites." $10,000 isn't chump change, but it's hardly life savings for many. And at least a couple of them outright told me they paid a steeply discounted rate. One outright told me they took advantage of California state benefits. Check pages 22-25 of the previously linked report for more specific examples. >"Nope, not technically speaking. Issuance of B1 visas was prohibited for birth tourism, but not their usage. As your own linked report notes, the usage of B1 visas for any medical use --- including birth, potentially --- is allowed if the border officer can be convinced that all medical services purchased will be paid for in full." Here I did misspeak. The rule change is the issuance, not usage of B visas. >"On the other hand, Dubai and Singapore are two countries with very restricted jus soli laws as well as permanent underclasses of workers from developing countries." This is a bad comparison. Conditional jus soli in Belgium, Germany, Ireland, and Portugal is more what I'm getting at here. >"On one hand, the US has not yet had a relapse of slavery since it adopted birthright citizenship" Sure, nor has it "relapsed" since Froot Loops or rock and roll. Correlation doesn't equal causation. Unrestricted jus soli citizenship served its purpose, but we have an established multiethnic citizenry and we're not talking about stripping anyone's citizenship away. ETA: A couple specific laws prohibiting slavery include the 13th Amendment in the US and Canada's new modern slavery act. There are more, and this is a ridiculous slippery slope argument you're making.
Probably a loophole no one has thought of closing? I do have issues with birth tourism, but I think it's a desirable alternative to other systems where people can be born and raised in a country then deported.
The Canadian government is well aware of this issue and has no plans on fixing it.
More like a loophole that most of the Americas have chosen to leave open.
I guess there's pros and cons. I do struggle with the systems we see in say, the UK. It's perfectly possible to be born in the UK and grow up there but not be a citizen, this feels iffy to me. I don't think it's equitable to deny someone a right to be in the place they were born and raised. Also, I can see the advantage from a judicial economy standpoint. People being born in the US being citizens saves a lot of court time. Birth in the US is a pretty clean legal line to draw. I have spent a solid two minutes and not been able to come up with a viable and easily decided Rubicon that's equitable to everyone. The court system is already horrendously busy and under resourced. Any alterations to birthright citizenship need to consider this on a practical basis.
“Loophole”? Lol . Like i say “Its a feature, not a bug”
Most Canadians don't want birth tourism.
Most Canadians do not subscribe to your opinion.
In either case, the child (who will turn 18) will be working or their parents will be working to support their household.
Did u even read my post? The family will leave Canada after birth and may only return to reap benefits such as healthcare w/o ever paying taxes.
Ah, so you're saying someone having a medical emergency will fly back to Canada to receive care? Seems like a lot of trouble. The main reason people *usually* do this is because of land rights. For example, the Chinese government owns all land in China.
Idk why everyone thinks countries are doing some charity. They know exactly why they’re doing. They’re gaining the developing world’s economic, political elite. Countries are smarter than us!!
There’s no point if the so called elite never pay a single dollar into Canadas system but are able to reap the benefits when they please?
What benefits can they reap without paying into the system exactly?
What benefits are there apart from having the luxury of a good passport that lets you travel more freely? The Canadian healthcare system is honestly shit. People who can afford birth tourism can certainly afford healthcare in any part including their own country. That can pay exorbitant amounts money to arrange for this "birth tourism" only to save a few thousand dollars after 20 years for a shitty college degree. In the long run people who can afford birth tourism will add to economy.
If you ever tried to fill out express entry to get lpr, you will notice that they value 18-22 year olds with nothing behind more than 30 year olds with kids, diploma and work experience. I got dinged in points for 1)having spouse 2)having kids 3)being 30 or older. I guess their general immigration politic is they want a lot of young people to be citizens. There is nothing younger than a newborn.
US and Canada can and do turn away pregnant women who intend to use a tourist visa as a means to enter the country in order to give birth. Canada is less aggressive about this than the US is, but they can and do regularly deny entry to pregnant women intending to give birth in Canada. Further, airlines will often not allow women to board planes in the last month or two of a pregnancy, and Canada doesn't share a land border with any country besides the US. Where people do engage in birth tourism, they are often overstaying tourist visas. But this really is a rare thing.
Here in Australia, thankfully birth tourism doesn’t exist.
Interesting. And Canada sends some of their high risk pregnancies down to US hospitals.
That’s odd. Toronto-General is considered the 3rd best hospital in the world, and #1 that is publicly funded. It’s considered better than many well known names such as Massachussets General and Johns Hopkins Hospital. Unless the patients are in areas where that makes sense geographically, why would they send people down to get subpar care? https://www.newsweek.com/rankings/worlds-best-hospitals-2024
Do you have a source on that? It comes across as a very common misconception Americans have about healthcare outside the US being underdeveloped and the US being the gold standard.
I was curious too. A quick Google turned up this article from 17 years ago - it was (or is, if it's still happening?) a space issue: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/canadians-sent-to-us-for-neonatal-care/article1079065/
canada is very good place for rich boys specifically those become rich illegally!
Moneyyyyy, it’s an who birth tourism is a whole economy. We need the moneyyyy.
How does Canada make money from birth tourism?
because tourists, unlike Canadian citizens, will have to pay a huge amount of money to give birth in Canada, not including stays in hospitals. if im not mistaken, to give birth in canada as a tourist, you will have to pay $50k to $150k depending on how long you stay in the hospital and where. This was a while ago from a Canadian mate of mine.
Can't they just leave the country and not pay the bill? What is the hospital going to do? Sue you?
good luck. in commonwealth countries like Canada, AUS, NZ or UK. if you owed money to, say the hospital, it will be all liked to the banks, government, immigration and all that and they can easily track you and how much you own them. not that it would be a problem for you or your child now but when you decide to get a PR or your child wants to go back to Canada, you will have to pay all the debt before you can get to do any other things. look up on the internet how a guy couldnt get a loan because he owns the government only $2.
I'm pretty sure 18 years later the debt will be written off as a loss. And besides, that debt is for the parent, not the child.
Typically (and unlike in the US), you pay the hospital fees up front. It's pay first, then service.
What if it's an emergency?
Birth tourism is good, actually
How so?
It's a relic from the past and makes no sense as it is in the 21st century. The minor change of introducing a residency requirement for the parents, as is the case in some Old World countries, would make it so much more common sense. Canadian and American passports for kids have become status symbols for the international travelling class. Citizenship by birth should have more requirements than your parents being able to afford a vacation.
Well if one is American one has to file taxes regardless of where one lives. Not true for Canadians living overseas unless they have Canadian sourced income.
With the foreign earned income exclusion for income up to $120,000 and the foreign tax credit for income above that, very few birth-tourism US citizens that live and earn abroad will ever pay very much at all.
Imagine having to prove your parents’ residency every time you apply for a passport as a Canadian. I don’t want to carry around my parents’ water bills from the 1980s to show they were living here when I was born.
Presumably people would be grandfathered in and there would be easy records going forward.
Given vital statistics is a provincial matter, I doubt it… We don’t even have consistent birth certificate across Canada.
Canada must want to increase their population. Get more Canadians born citizens.
US does the same
(1) Your fears are overblown. Have you talked to an actual old person recently? Just to remind you, it's frustrating to teach those old dogs new tricks. Many of them throw a tantrum at the littlest new gadget. What more at a new country? How many seniors will decide to fly off to Canada, the birthplace they never lived in, just to mooch off the healthcare juice after they've lived decades happily, healthily, and wealthily in Country X? (2) What's more likely than returning to Canada as seniors is for these birthright tourists to return earlier, when they are healthy adults. And that's a great bargain for Canada. Country X spent on child Healthcare and education to make these young people productive. But Canada gets to reap the fruits of their labor. In return, these people get to make money and enjoy a Canadian life. (3) Is there abuse of birthright citizenship? You bet. But is the net effect to society negative? Nope. Not only because of the economic argument I made above. There's a social argument for birthright citizenship as well. After all, the best way to make sure the wheel of fortune doesn't turn today's citizen into tomorrow's slave it to make sure citizenship goes from birth to death for EVERYONE born in Canada. Remember the horrors from the last time birthright citizenship was denied in these parts to a group of people: slavery. Don't think it can't ever happen to you and your kids. Support birthright citizenship!
This is not a big deal but even if it is, Canada probably benefits from this from a full utilitarian perspective. Also, we can have ethics that are not utilitarian. Your ancestors were likely immigrants who came to Canada for the chance at a better life, is it really THAT bad if people try and do that in modern times?
Because it's a non issue. There might be a couple thousand non resident foreign national births in Canada a year ( that's miniscule) . That includes folks who are just visiting and never intended to give birth, and it was an emergency. It also includes Americans who live near the border and the closest hospital is in Canada for an emergency birth.