Birth tourism a bigger concern than estimated

[turningrite]

This issue has been discussed under U.S. politics but is also applicable to Canada and I believe deserves greater policy scrutiny here than has been the case to date. A front page article in today's Toronto Star ("More 'anchor babies' born here than estimated, study shows" - I won't copy and paste the link due to the paywall issue, however I believe it can be accessed for most via online search) illustrates the need for greater attention in this country. According to the article, the study concludes that birth tourism probably accounts for 1,500 to 2,000 births a year, a level far greater than Stats Can calculations. The discrepancy is in large measure attributable to the fact that many of the mothers involved provide temporary Canadian addresses for purposes of completing the provincial birth records that are the basis of Stats Can's calculations. Much of the problem is focused in the Toronto region, the epicenter of Canada's immigration boondoggle. Greater Vancouver (i.e. Richmond - the leader) and Montreal are also represented among the locations of the top ten hospitals listed for non-resident births.

The study raises three strategies for possible reform: 1) Making it an offense for a visitor to fail to disclose a pregnancy or that the purpose of their visit is to give birth (probably very difficult to enforce), and/or 2) Adopting a qualified birthright approach requiring a child to live in Canada for 10 years after birth to claim citizenship, and/or 3) Prohibiting rooming houses, consultants and support services for birth tourism. Oddly, there is no discussion in the article of banning birthright citizenship where neither parent has status in or significant attachment to Canada. Perhaps it is this last option that we should consider more seriously? Unlike in the U.S., there would appear to be no constitutional barrier applicable to reining in birth tourism in Canada as is done in all Western countries outside of this hemisphere.

Edited November 22, 2018 by turningrite

[taxme]

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

This issue has been discussed under U.S. politics but is also applicable to Canada and I believe deserves greater policy scrutiny here than has been the case to date. A front page article in today's Toronto Star ("More 'anchor babies' born here than estimated, study shows" - I won't copy and paste the link due to the paywall issue, however I believe it can be accessed for most via online search) illustrates the need for greater attention in this country. According to the article, the study concludes that birth tourism probably accounts for 1,500 to 2,000 births a year, a level far greater than Stats Can calculations. The discrepancy is in large measure attributable to the fact that many of the mothers involved provide temporary Canadian addresses for purposes of completing the provincial birth records that are the basis of Stats Can's calculations. Much of the problem is focused in the Toronto region, the epicenter of Canada's immigration boondoggle. Greater Vancouver (i.e. Richmond - the leader) and Montreal are also represented among the locations of the top ten hospitals listed for non-resident births.

The study raises three strategies for possible reform: 1) Making it an offense for a visitor to fail to disclose a pregnancy or that the purpose of their visit is to give birth (probably very difficult to enforce), and/or 2) Adopting a qualified birthright approach requiring a child to live in Canada for 10 years after birth to claim citizenship, and/or 3) Prohibiting rooming houses, consultants and support services for birth tourism. Oddly, there is no discussion in the article of banning birthright citizenship where neither parent has status in or significant attachment to Canada. Perhaps it is this last option that we should consider more seriously? Unlike in the U.S., there would appear to be no constitutional barrier applicable to reining in birth tourism in Canada as is done in all Western countries outside of this hemisphere.

Personally, I would make it a new policy today that any woman going to visit Canada for a holiday and is pregnant she will not be allowed to have her baby become a Canadian citizen if that baby is born on Canadian soil. As things go for me that baby is also here on a visit and should be treated as a tourist also. If it is born in Canada, well too bad, that baby cannot become a citizen of Canada. I wonder what idiotic politician/s dreamed up this nonsense to allow tourism birthright citizenship anyway?

This tourism birth nonsense is nothing more than that? Nonsense, and it should be stopped now. And I hope that those mothers visiting Canada do end up paying for the birth of their child in Canada, and not the Canadian taxpayer's. But sometimes I get the feeling that the Canadian taxpayer's do end up somehow paying either partially or fully for the birth of another persons child from another country. Hey, this is Canada, don't you know? Anything goes here. 

[Argus]

It really doesn't matter. Our virtue signalling PM wouldn't do anything about this if it was proven that a hundred thousand a year were coming here to have babies.

Edited November 23, 2018 by Argus

[eyeball]

The sorts of people who can afford an extended vacation in Vancouver or Toronto are clearly wealthy people of means. Exactly the sort of immigrants the usual suspects around here are forever advising we should allow in.  It's suspicious no one is complaining about the things some poor wealthy people need to resort to when competing against the hordes of ignorant goat-herders they usually complain about Ottawa letting in.

It never was about money, its always been about race.

[Centerpiece]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

It really doesn't matter. Our virtue signalling PM wouldn't do anything about this if it was proven that a hundred thousand a year were coming here to have babies.

....but not because he actually thought about it - he doesn't have the mental capacity. His unelected advisers just tell him what to say and he does his best to memorize his scripted answers. Of course, every now and then, he's not prepared and his Mother's son shines through. I just have to keep posting these because people just don't understand how daft and shallow poor Justin is:

Trudeau on Trade Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oedaSfUU0vc

Trudeau on Ethics Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-U8fvYvtec&fbclid=IwAR23wiGWzx7C0z9yRwR_4N5PMB6gsI3OqNx_bPuet-143y7xcfj9ZbQ2co8

 

 

[Wilber]

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The sorts of people who can afford an extended vacation in Vancouver or Toronto are clearly wealthy people of means. Exactly the sort of immigrants the usual suspects around here are forever advising we should allow in.  It's suspicious no one is complaining about the things some poor wealthy people need to resort to when competing against the hordes of ignorant goat-herders they usually complain about Ottawa letting in.

It never was about money, its always been about race.

They aren't here to be residents and pay taxes, they came to get a kid a dual citizenship and go back where they came from. Nothing more.

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, Wilber said:

They aren't here to be residents and pay taxes, they came to get a kid a dual citizenship and go back where they came from. Nothing more.

A rich kid who probably will be back...where's the downside, compared to a goat-herder?

[Wilber]

Just now, eyeball said:

A rich kid who probably will be back...where's the downside, compared to a goat-herder?

The rich kid will come back to invest in real estate, then head back to Hong Kong where he pays 15% tax. His Canadian citizenship will just be a parachute in case things go south in China or  where ever else he came from. He can then use that citizenship to get his parents into the country. 

[eyeball]

Just now, Wilber said:

The rich kid will come back to invest in real estate, then head back to Hong Kong where he pays 15% tax. His Canadian citizenship will just be a parachute in case things go south in China or  where ever else he came from. He can then use that citizenship to get his parents into the country. 

Rich parents, again, where's the downside compared to a goat-herder?

I have no doubt things are going to go south so won't the money migrate here too?  Surely Canada doesn't just let rich citizens live here while paying no taxes.  Say it ain't so.

[Wilber]

Just now, eyeball said:

Rich parents, again, where's the downside compared to a goat-herder?

I have no doubt things are going to go south so won't the money migrate here too?  Surely Canada doesn't just let rich citizens live here while paying no taxes.  Say it ain't so.

Canadians pay taxes based on their residency, not their citizenship. We could do like the US and make Canadians subject to tax on their world wide income regardless of where they live. Make Canadian citizenship something worth paying for. Betcha that would put a crimp in birth tourism.The point is, our system is being gamed by people who have no real interest in this country.

[Hates politicians]

Don't let them in if they're pregnant, and if they go to deliver a kid because they stayed too long, deny citizenship because of it