Passport babies delivered in B.C. for $22,000

[mikedavid00]

http://www.asianpacificpost.com/portal2/40...28c13bf.do.html

Canada is doing nothing about this.

Basically there are ads running in Korean newspapers. For $22,000 you will be flown to B.C, and they can have their baby at our hosptials for citizenship:

"Wohn and his travel agent partner in Seoul were promising pregnant mothers medical check-ups, delivery at a Vancouver area hospital, two months of postnatal care, a return flight, a local guide providing services ranging from airport pickup to getting the baby's birth certificate, social insurance number and eventually Canadian citizenship. "

[geoffrey]

That's a bit of an issue, I agree here. But how to regulate that? No pregnant women allowed into Canada?

[mikedavid00]

That's a bit of an issue, I agree here. But how to regulate that? No pregnant women allowed into Canada?

You just basically do what the UK and New Zealand did to deal with this very same issue: not allow citizenship to children unless the parents are citizens.

The US is also working now to change this but it's a lot harder for them because it's in their constitution I think.

[geoffrey]

That's a bit of an issue, I agree here. But how to regulate that? No pregnant women allowed into Canada?

You just basically do what the UK and New Zealand did to deal with this very same issue: not allow citizenship to children unless the parents are citizens.

The US is also working now to change this but it's a lot harder for them because it's in their constitution I think.

That makes sense to me. No citizenships just because your born here.

[Argus]

That's a bit of an issue, I agree here. But how to regulate that? No pregnant women allowed into Canada?

You just basically do what the UK and New Zealand did to deal with this very same issue: not allow citizenship to children unless the parents are citizens.

The US is also working now to change this but it's a lot harder for them because it's in their constitution I think.

That makes sense to me. No citizenships just because your born here.

If a cat has kittens in a dog house do we call them puppies?

If neither of your parents are Canadian there is no reason why you should get citizenship just because they are here temporarily when you are born. I think we have been lax in taking into account how much smaller the world has gotten over the last few decades. The simple rule - if you're born here you're Canadian - worked fine at a time when it was presumed anyone born here was going to be growing up and living here. That's not the case now.

[Drea]

I have to agree with Argus.

If I'm pregnant and go on a holiday to Greece will my baby still be Canadian or will he be Greek?

IMO unless the parents are citizens, landed immigrants or refugees there should be no citizenship for the baby.

[kimmy]

I know a Canadian, with Canadian parents, who has German citizenship because his parents were stationed with NATO forces in Germany when he was born. (I believe hockey star Dany Heatley is also a German citizen, for the same reason.) Canada is obviously not the only country that does this.

I agree with the premise that there's no need to grant citizenship to babies who are born here just because the parents were in town for a couple of weeks.

However, what about long-time legal residents who have not yet obtained citizenship? For instance, hockey player Doug Weight and his wife were American citizens who I don't believe ever obtained Canadian citizenship, but lived in Edmonton for many years and had kids here and raised them to school age before Doug was traded to another team. Should his kids have been Canadian citizens?

-k

[Riverwind]

I know a Canadian, with Canadian parents, who has German citizenship because his parents were stationed with NATO forces in Germany when he was born. (I believe hockey star Dany Heatley is also a German citizen, for the same reason.)

One of his parents would have had to be a German citizen at the time he was born. Most military kids born in Germany do _not_ qualify for German citizenship.

I agree that we should change the law: no citizenship unless the parents are citizens or landed immigrants.

[mikedavid00]

However, what about long-time legal residents who have not yet obtained citizenship? For instance, hockey player Doug Weight and his wife were American citizens who I don't believe ever obtained Canadian citizenship, but lived in Edmonton for many years and had kids here and raised them to school age before Doug was traded to another team. Should his kids have been Canadian citizens?

-k

Long time legal residents should not have their kids be citizens. If they do break the law and get deported, it's a sticky issue because the kids are citizens so the parents usually win the case.

We in Canada should promote single citizenship of our country and demote Perminant Residence program all together.

That's fine, but when Doug WHite retires and goes back to the US he can take his kids with him.

Please grasp that we have a shortage of jobs and iflux of people using our services right now and we can't be letting any just stay and pass around citizenship.

[August1991]

If a cat has kittens in a dog house do we call them puppies?

If neither of your parents are Canadian there is no reason why you should get citizenship just because they are here temporarily when you are born. I think we have been lax in taking into account how much smaller the world has gotten over the last few decades. The simple rule - if you're born here you're Canadian - worked fine at a time when it was presumed anyone born here was going to be growing up and living here. That's not the case now.

Canada's current citizenship act dates from 1977. It was written by Trudeau personally and is generous.

Anyone born in Canada becomes a Canadian citizen (the sole exception are children born to diplomats). In addition, anyone born anywhere in the world with either or a father or mother who is a Canadian citizen becomes a Canadian citizen. Furthermore, it takes only 3 years residency in Canada for an immigrant to become a citizen, less if the immigrant is under 18 years old. Finally, it is impossible to lose Canadian citizenship unless the person renounces it in writing. (This has changed slightly because of war crimes.)

Previous citizenship laws were more restrictive and they generally didn't work. They lead to anomalies and people losing Canadian citizenship or not having it. Before posters on this forum go down the restriction route, they should realize that we've been there, done that.

Another point. Trudeau wrote the citizenship law with the express idea of Quebec in mind. If Quebec were to separate and create its own citizenship, all Quebecers would remain Canadian citizens.

The Conservatives are the only party that could conceivably change our citizenship law, restricting who becomes a citizen. They would certainly require a majority government to do it. I frankly don't think they need or want the aggravation they would face. Other matters are more pressing. It's true however that Canada needs a new citizenship act.

----

The fact of the matter is we live in a world where people move feely about, marry abroad, have children. The notion of citizenship is recent and entirely bureaucratic. Passports and visas date from the early part the 1900s. Canada didn't have a citizenship act before 1947.

[kimmy]

Previous citizenship laws were more restrictive and they generally didn't work. They lead to anomalies and people losing Canadian citizenship or not having it. Before posters on this forum go down the restriction route, they should realize that we've been there, done that.

Can you provide examples of how the more restrictive laws didn't work?

-k

[Riverwind]

Another point. Trudeau wrote the citizenship law with the express idea of Quebec in mind. If Quebec were to separate and create its own citizenship, all Quebecers would remain Canadian citizens.

Ironically, if Quebec did separate the chances of the law staying the same are zero. Canadians cannot and should not put up with a situation where 25% of its citizens live outside the country. You have provided yet another argument for why the current laws on citizenship are broken an need to be changed.

[August1991]

Can you provide examples of how the more restrictive laws didn't work?

Under the previous law, if a Canadian woman married an American and moved to the US to live with him, she may have lost her Canadian citizenship without knowing it.

Children typically pose the greatest challenge. If I understand this thread, people are proposing that we restrict citizenship to children who have at least one parent who is a Canadian citizen. What about children born to permanent resident? What happens if a student in Canada has a child and then becomes a permanent resident later? Or what about your American hockey player example?

We could have circumstances where the grandparents are Canadian citizens but the grandchildren are not.

We could also have circumstances of children born in Canada who are stateless. No country would recognize them as citizens.

Like a lot of rules, you only start to understand the full consequences when you ask people to follow them. Few rules are as difficult to design as rules for people and citizenship.

[August1991]

Ironically, if Quebec did separate the chances of the law staying the same are zero. Canadians cannot and should not put up with a situation where 25% of its citizens live outside the country. You have provided yet another argument for why the current laws on citizenship are broken an need to be changed.

Trudeau was far smarter than that.

There are several hundred thousand or a million Canadian citizens living outside of Canada. They are indistinguishable from Canadians living in Quebec. It would be practically impossible to remove citizenship from one group (those in Quebec) while not removing it from another (those outside Canada).

To give an example, Marie Tremblay and Mary Jones are Canadian citizens living in St. Old Folks, Florida. How could you possibly stop one being a Canadian citizen and not the other? (Assuming of course Marie doesn't voluntarily give it up.) European governments have done things like this but it's impractical and grotesque.

I don't want to get into thread drift but Pierre Trudeau once remarked that Quebec nationalists would make of the West Island the Danzig of the new world.

[Riverwind]

There are several hundred thousand or a million Canadian citizens living outside of Canada. They are indistinguishable from Canadians living in Quebec. It would be practically impossible to remove citizenship from one group (those in Quebec) while not removing it from another (those outside Canada).

Not at all. It might take a constitutional change but the law could simply mandate that all people who were resident in Quebec prior to seperation will automatically loose their citizenship unless they move to Canada and maintain a continuous residence in Canada for 3-5 years. Similar rules already apply to landed immigrants so you cannot really argue that it is not practical.

What you are missing here is the political reality. It will be politically impossible to allow Quebequers to keep their citizenships so the politicians will be forced to find a way to make it happen.

[Riverwind]

What about children born to permanent resident? What happens if a student in Canada has a child and then becomes a permanent resident later? Or what about your American hockey player example?

Children born to permanent residents should be allowed to claim citizenship.

People immigrate with children to Canada all of the time and their children get permanent residence status too and later citizenship. I see no reason to treat an immigrant child who happened to be born in Canada differently

[August1991]

It might take a constitutional change but the law could simply mandate that all people who were resident in Quebec prior to seperation will automatically loose their citizenship unless they move to Canada and maintain a continuous residence in Canada for 3-5 years. Similar rules already apply to landed immigrants so you cannot really argue that it is not practical.

Riverwind, I don't think you fully grasp the problem.

We have Canadian citizens living abroad with little or no connection to Canada. Some of them were born in Quebec, some in Ontario. Some were resident in Quebec, some not. It would be arbitrary and grotesque to design any kind of rule that would somehow make a distinction between these people.

In any case, the rule would become impractical and impossible to apply.

There is little doubt in my mind that Trudeau did this deliberately. (Incidentally, in response, the PQ has haphazardly tried to use the Quebec health card as a de facto Quebec citizenship document. This poses other problems.)

[Riverwind]

We have Canadian citizens living abroad with little or no connection to Canada. Some of them were born in Quebec, some in Ontario. Some were resident in Quebec, some not. It would be arbitrary and grotesque to design any kind of rule that would somehow make a distinction between these people.

ROTFL. Jean Charest has said that all residents of Quebec are members of the Quebec 'nation'. If it is possible to arbitrarily include people in the Quebec nation based on residency then it is possible arbitrarily exclude people from the Canadian nation based on similar criteria. The entire separation debate is based entirely on making arbitrary and grotesque distinctions between people. So Quebequers can hardly complain if they are force to swallow some of their own medicine.

In any case, the issue will be one of principal and I don't think Canadians will care if a 100,000 or so residents of a Hull can bypass the rules as long as the rules ensure that the overwhelming majority of Quebec residents no longer qualify for the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

[Argus]

I know a Canadian, with Canadian parents, who has German citizenship because his parents were stationed with NATO forces in Germany when he was born. (I believe hockey star Dany Heatley is also a German citizen, for the same reason.)

One of his parents would have had to be a German citizen at the time he was born. Most military kids born in Germany do _not_ qualify for German citizenship.

I agree with this. I also was born in Germany, as my father was serving abroad with the RCAF. I have no German citizenship. I wonder if it makes a difference if you were born on an allied base, as opposed to a civilian hospital?

[mikedavid00]

Previous citizenship laws were more restrictive and they generally didn't work.

That is simply not true unless you are taking about early 1900's. Almost every country in the world has more restictive laws and they work very well. That is proveable and factual; unlike your assertion.

[Argus]

If a cat has kittens in a dog house do we call them puppies?

If neither of your parents are Canadian there is no reason why you should get citizenship just because they are here temporarily when you are born. I think we have been lax in taking into account how much smaller the world has gotten over the last few decades. The simple rule - if you're born here you're Canadian - worked fine at a time when it was presumed anyone born here was going to be growing up and living here. That's not the case now.

Canada's current citizenship act dates from 1977. It was written by Trudeau personally and is generous.

Anyone born in Canada becomes a Canadian citizen (the sole exception are children born to diplomats).

Think about the reason why diplomats' kids don't become citizens of Canada, and then tell me why that should not be applied to all other foreigners who are here temporarily. Trudeau was a philosopher and socialist. He was quite impatient with details, preferring broad vision instead. As with many of his ideas, the devil is in the details - which he ignored.

Previous citizenship laws were more restrictive and they generally didn't work. They lead to anomalies and people losing Canadian citizenship or not having it. Before posters on this forum go down the restriction route, they should realize that we've been there, done that.

Most of the problems of previous laws had to do with Canadians going abroad, or gender bias. ie, you would become Canadian if born abrod to a Canadian father, but not mother. I see no problem whatever with excluding those born here who have neither parent as a citizen or would-be citizen, and who then goes back to his or her home country to grow up.

Another point. Trudeau wrote the citizenship law with the express idea of Quebec in mind. If Quebec were to separate and create its own citizenship, all Quebecers would remain Canadian citizens.

Only a complete idiot would believe that would continue. The laws would be rewritten within the first year, and force Quebecers to choose. Or does anyone believe those born in Quebec, ie, all those Anglophones, who moved to Canada during their lifetimes would continue to have the right to vote in Quebec's elections and to work in Quebec?

I know public servants who work for the federal govenrment in Ottawa who live across the river in Gatineau, and who blithely assume that if Quebec seperated their jobs would be protected, and they'd still be able to work and vote here. Idiots, the lot of them.

[mikedavid00]

What about children born to permanent resident? What happens if a student in Canada has a child and then becomes a permanent resident later? Or what about your American hockey player example?

Children born to permanent residents should be allowed to claim citizenship.

People immigrate with children to Canada all of the time and their children get permanent residence status too and later citizenship. I see no reason to treat an immigrant child who happened to be born in Canada differently

Preminant residents can be expelled from the country if they break laws. A citizen cannot. Thus, if the citizen children are in the care of their non-citizen parents, the non citizen parents will not get expelled.

This is just a loophole to expoit our system.

My friends boyfriend is Jamaican. He says that he does not want to get his citizenship becauese his home country of Jamaica does not allow duel citizenship. So he just keeps his perminant residence.

He lives and works here, yet places his Jamaican citizenship higher above the prospect of a Canadiana citizenship.

Overall, these situations are not beneficial to our countries well being. (fact).

[Argus]

We have Canadian citizens living abroad with little or no connection to Canada. Some of them were born in Quebec, some in Ontario. Some were resident in Quebec, some not. It would be arbitrary and grotesque to design any kind of rule that would somehow make a distinction between these people.

I have no difficulty whatever making a distinction between these people. If you immigrate to Canada and then go home again, you lose your citizenship. Period. I'm open to how long abroad before that happens, but I see no reason why hundreds of thousands of these people should be able to lay claim to Canadian resources in the case of emergency, be it war or health, when they clearly have no connection to Canada.

In any case, the rule would become impractical and impossible to apply.

I don't see a problem with applying the rule. As far as I'm concerned any immigrant is on probation for as long as he or she is here, and we should be able to rescind our invitation if they turn out to be failures or criminals. I also think the residency requirement before gaining citizenship should be ten years, or fifteen, not three.

[Riverwind]

Permanent residents can be expelled from the country if they break laws. A citizen cannot. Thus, if the citizen children are in the care of their non-citizen parents, the non citizen parents will not get expelled.

Then close the loop hole. Children of permanent residents need not be citizens immediately but could have the right to apply for Canadian citizenship when they turn 18 or when their parents are granted citizenship. If their parents are expelled then they would have to go with them or find another guardian.

[mikedavid00]

Children typically pose the greatest challenge. If I understand this thread, people are proposing that we restrict citizenship to children who have at least one parent who is a Canadian citizen.

Yes, like most of Europe and the rest of the world. This is factual, not idealogical.

What about children born to permanent resident?

The children become permanent residents also. There is an exploit in the system if these children become citizens under our current laws. That is factual, not idealogical.

What happens if a student in Canada has a child and then becomes a permanent resident later?

Then the student must leave the country and shall be billed the healthcare expenses. Student visa's are actually one of the toughest ways into Canada if you do not find someon to get married to. I've known many who have been expelled from the country on student visa's because they could not find work or marriage after they graduated.

We could have circumstances where the grandparents are Canadian citizens but the grandchildren are not.

I have lots of extended family in Lebannon. I'm not entitled to get citizenship there. They would never in a million years issue me any kind of citizenship.

You are missing the point due to years of bad policy and political correctness: it is no ones 'right' to come to Canada. This is a private country,with borders, it's own economy, laws, and security.

Again, it is not anyones 'right' to come to Canada.

We could also have circumstances of children born in Canada who are stateless. No country would recognize them as citizens.

That won't happen. When this does happen, it's lies and is the most remote chance. Let Belgium take them.

Like a lot of rules, you only start to understand the full consequences when you ask people to follow them.

Here we go with more idealisms.

These rules ARE in place, in almost EVERY modern country in the world. This goes for France, UK, Germany, US, Japan, Dubai, Ireland, Scottland, Italy, Greece, anywhere in the world almost.

Few rules are as difficult to design as rules for people and citizenship.

Idealism. The above sentance is a 'peronal hunch', a 'guess', an 'idea'. We already have these laws enabled and working.

Canada shall welcome people only to benefit out employers when they can't find work. Canada shall welcome business investors (not the current system), and Canada promotes people to get single citizenships if they prove that they can be an asset to our country.

Under no cricumstances shall people from abroad abuse us, take us for granted, and just aimlessly land here to 'live' amongst their community. We should not promote what is happening now.