Peter F

I take offence to this bullshit that I, as a SJW, confine my outrage to the oppression of Asians.

I have no idea. Nor do I care. China makes its own rules and Canada is not required to dance to whatever laws other countries may or may not implement.

If they are tourists then they tour and leave for home. Just like these tourists who gave birth to children in Canada. Tourists also get to use and abuse our generosity by paying for all healthcare and all other payable services. Just like every other non-birthing tourist or birthing tourist. So I'm not sure what you are talking about anymore when referring to how some folks use and abuse our generosity. The tourists use and abuse it? or the children born at these so-called birthing centres use and abuse it?

Ok. So it isn't the parents that worry you, it is the children born here who are carried off to some other land and then return many years later and need not undergo the immigration process. This is nothing new. It has been happening forever where parents move their canadian citizen children to other lands and one day those children return.

Being retired on a govt pension doesn't in itself make me a user and abuser of your generosity any more than being an immigrant does. We do already give citizenship to any who ask for it - eventually anyways. Them having a canadian child does not grant the parents citizenship.

Lordy, I'm retired on a government pension, I use and abuse your generosity every day by merely continuing to exist. Who the hell doesn't use and abuse your generosity? An immigrant no matter the source is a user and abuser of your generosity? ETA: sorry, didn't address your first sentence. "The granting of citizenships of convenience" Is that a special class of citizenship? Do the documents say "Canadian Citizen of Convenience"? or do the documents say "Canadian Citizen."? Don't you find it convenient to be a Canadian? I do. Makes my life sooo much easier. Is it ever inconvenient ? This citizenship of convenience is meaningless prattle much like the supposed value of Canadian citizenship that increases or diminishes depending on unknowable unpredictable factors.

And what is the unintended purpose? Has this granting of citizenship been used for unintended purpose?

Its not a loophole. It is what the system allows. Anyone born here gets Canadian citizenship. There is no loophole.

That would require them to hide the child away while in China. Difficult to do if flying in to Hong Kong and going through customs with a new born in tow.

Or...anyone eligible could immigrate here and do the exact same thing. But they wouldn't have to wait nearly as long. There is an assumption that the child holding canadian citizenship will actually do that in 20 years time. They could very well have no interest in doing so. And if they do have the interest Big Effin Deal because without the granted citizenship they could do they exact same thing.

The tourists are abandoning their newborns here?

It doesn't confuse me at all, Argus. It seems to confuse you though. Is not this 'Birth House' issue that children born here are granted Canadian citizenship no matter what thier parents citizenship is? It doesn't confuse me at all that being born of Canadian citizens in Germany that Germany did not grant you German citizenship.

Ah, so it has nothing to do with Canadian citizenship - even golden haloed ones.

Who's stopping them?

Lordy, we do give citizenship to anyone that asks for it. Right now. Plus we give citizenship to anyone that is born here - always have. Canadian citizens can come and go as they wish. If Canadians want to live in some other country then they are allowed to do so for as long as they wish to do so. I'm curious at how you think things would be different if we did not allow citizenship at birth. What would happen then? These wannabe's would have to apply for citizenship which would eventually be granted (assuming they be law abiding ). What happens now? These wannabe's would have to apply for citizenship which would eventually be granted (assuming they be law abiding) The difference? None that I can see. ETA: Except one can happen right now and the other will maybe happen 18 years from now soonest.

Betsy you are the one making the religious argument. Cybercoma, amongst others, was pointing that out. I most certainly do hold Cybercoma's argument as a model. A very good argument it is. I must admit that I never thought about Cybercoma's argument prior to becoming a convinced pro-abortionist. The argument that convinced me is this: No state or citizen should have the legal right to compel a woman to remain pregnant and bear children when those women do not wish to do so. We recognize that no one can or should compel a woman to become pregnant against her will. We recognize that no one can or should compel a woman to end her pregnancy against her will. Why must they now remain pregnant against her will? According to me : We shouldn't. The woman's right to have some control over her own physical state is paramount over any supposed right of the unborn. The unborn have no rights and they never have had rights. The unborn do not exist as human beings. They are, at the very most, potential human beings assuming the pregnancy is successfully carried to term. Then and only then do they become human beings. Up until that point the fetus/baby is part and parcel of mom and in no ways can be considered a separate being from mom. Your concept of a human being originating at conception is religious - purely and completely.

Who says the parents are immigrants? They are definitely not immigrants. The child born here is not an immigrant either. such children are Canadian citizens by fact of birth - just like every other child born here by immigrant or non-immigrant parents. What the hell is the fear here? That in 18 or 21 years Canadian born children will sponsor their parents to move here too and eventually also become Canadian citizens? That is some sort of 'loophole'? The parents will be jumping the que ? Getting unjustly fas-tracked?

No need to tell them that. A child born in this country is a citizen of this country. That is not new. It is very very old. It's been that way since 1867 at least.

So no immigrants from China then?

Was Cybercomma's argument a secular argument or not?

All immigrants are 'real' and all citizens are 'real'.

Bullshit. The only thing that matters is citizenship. "Foreigners" who have Canadian citizenship are not foreigners. They're Canadians. I get it that you don't like that much. We're not an exclusive club. We're a country.

So you can sell your passport for 800,000 bucks? Good luck with that. What was it you said ? Please explain how these tourists investments turn into 800,000 bucks.

You mean just like the immigration laws allow? Where Canadians get pensions and health care? Like everyone else who is a Canadian?

Got a market quote for that? or are you just making stuff up? You are making stuff up. Connection with this country's values, history or culture or the lack of desire to have any, is not a condition of citizenship. Never has been. Never will be. Birth is all that is required or perhaps swearing the citizenship after passing the test. Your fantasy requirements do not exist.