status of child in canada born to illegal or person as visitor

[jrjayl]

While I agree with you, but understand that if you are relatively privileged and have some money, the birth tourism industry is quite sophisticated (depending on your home country). There are brokers who will organize everything for you (as if you were going on a group tour). You just show up and you are driven to your temporary residence and you have people taking care of you, will find and book an appointment with doctors and hospitals, etc. You will have a translator. Other than the pregnancy itself, there is minimal additional stress at all to the mother at all.

http://world.time.com/2013/11/27/chinese-women-are-flocking-to-the-u-s-to-have-babies/

And if you are not privileged and do not have money, I still understand why people would go through with it anyway. You want to give your child the best chance of success. If you are from a poor country, a citizenship in a developed country can make a huge difference. When you have nothing else to provide, this is huge. I don't agree with birth tourism but I certainly see the appeal.

I agree with the appeal. However, I see it as a selfish action to rather considering the best of the kid, a way to obtain potential benefits for the parents themselves.

1. Kid born here may not obtain free health coverage unless one of the parent is covered already (at least it is the case in Quebec, not sure about other places)
2. If parents cannot legally stay, they have to bring kids back to their home country to live and receive education - what difference does it make for the kids?
3. One might argue: kid does have a Canadian passport. Ok, parents can't afford to send him/her back to Canada for education, but expect him/her to just find a job easily?

And what might be in for the parents:

1. May not have to be deported due to humanity reasons (best interest of the Canadian children), I think this is the major appeal
2. Kid sponsors parents at age of 18, conditions apply
3. May receive money from government for the new born for many years

I don't know if this should be named "to secure the FUTURE OF THE CHILD".

 

[eileenf]

While I agree with you, but understand that if you are relatively privileged and have some money, the birth tourism industry is quite sophisticated (depending on your home country). There are brokers who will organize everything for you (as if you were going on a group tour). You just show up and you are driven to your temporary residence and you have people taking care of you, will find and book an appointment with doctors and hospitals, etc. You will have a translator. Other than the pregnancy itself, there is minimal additional stress at all to the mother at all.

http://world.time.com/2013/11/27/chinese-women-are-flocking-to-the-u-s-to-have-babies/

And if you are not privileged and do not have money, I still understand why people would go through with it anyway. You want to give your child the best chance of success. If you are from a poor country, a citizenship in a developed country can make a huge difference. When you have nothing else to provide, this is huge. I don't agree with birth tourism but I certainly see the appeal.

Keesio I agree that there is a great appeal and it might be of great value to the child in the future (though we cannot know who our children will be or where they will want to go exactly). It's interesting that the concierge service in the link reported working in Canada as well, which would seem more challenging logistically due to socialized healthcare.

What I'm saying is that people should never be glib or dismissive about what it means to give birth in another country, culture, language, where you may not be welcome. Even if you have a translator. It's not nothing to spend 2-3 days in a hospital at the most vulnerable, intense, crazy moment of your life and know from the glares and even yells of staff members that you are not wanted there.

It's not the main point, but it's not nothing. It would be interesting to know how many women do this for a first born vs. a second born. I suspect that many who think it wouldn't be that big a deal before they've given birth would think differently afterwards.

 

[keesio]

I agree with the appeal. However, I see it as a selfish action to rather considering the best of the kid, a way to obtain potential benefits for the parents themselves.

1. Kid born here may not obtain free health coverage unless one of the parent is covered already (at least it is the case in Quebec, not sure about other places)
2. If parents cannot legally stay, they have to bring kids back to their home country to live and receive education - what difference does it make for the kids?
3. One might argue: kid does have a Canadian passport. Ok, parents can't afford to send him/her back to Canada for education, but expect him/her to just find a job easily?

And what might be in for the parents:

1. May not have to be deported due to humanity reasons (best interest of the Canadian children), I think this is the major appeal
2. Kid sponsors parents at age of 18, conditions apply
3. May receive money from government for the new born for many years

I don't know if this should be named "to secure the FUTURE OF THE CHILD".

Sure there are selfish reasons for the parents. But I think often times it is just a backup plan to benefit the child. For example remember the crazy "nut rage" lady on Korean Air?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/12/nut-queen-korean-anger-elite-cho-hyun-ah

She is the daughter of the chairman of the business conglomerate that owns Korean Air. Her family is worth billions. She also did birth tourism, going to Hawaii to give birth to her twins. Why? As a way to give her children a way out of Korean mandatory military service. It is actually a bit overkill since in Korea, the children of the elite are nowhere near any real danger and are given cushy positions and pampered. Think of when Prince Harry was serving in the British military. Anyway what does she have to gain over birth tourism? Yeah this is an extreme case but a lot of times it is to secure the child's future.

 

[jrjayl]

Sure there are selfish reasons for the parents. But I think often times it is just a backup plan to benefit the child. For example remember the crazy "nut rage" lady on Korean Air?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/12/nut-queen-korean-anger-elite-cho-hyun-ah

She is the daughter of the chairman of the business conglomerate that owns Korean Air. Her family is worth billions. She also did birth tourism, going to Hawaii to give birth to her twins. Why? As a way to give her children a way out of Korean mandatory military service. It is actually a bit overkill since in Korea, the children of the elite are nowhere near any real danger and are given cushy positions and pampered. Think of when Prince Harry was serving in the British military. Anyway what does she have to gain over birth tourism? Yeah this is an extreme case but a lot of times it is to secure the child's future.

You know... for rich/noble people, it doesn't really matter where they are, the word "future" won't change its meaning much. Plus, if they do the birth tourism, there is probably a higher chance they will pay the bills and send their kids to good private schools. I have nothing to complain.

 

[rayman_m]

There is quite a good nos. of people around the world who's children are born in US and Canada. As of now both country did not ban birth tourism. Most of people giving their children birth in these countries are affluent and pay the hospital bills (approx. 4/5K).

Also there is many people who has the intention to move to these countries in near future and they think if a child is being born earlier that may be a advantage for them for future settlement.

 

[Maryjane11]

Concern what Karenv said:

"Just want to mention the case that I knew lately. The visitors, none of them was diplomat, gave birth in Canada but their child can't have citizenship. When applying for their child's Canadian passport, the passport was refused. This happened in Nov 2014.

Just for your information. I don't mean to say anybody here right or wrong. The government decided what they want to give and take."

So why the baby was refused citizenship? Did s/he get birth cert? No citizenship and so no passport?

After reading all of the above, so the citizenship is still given to babies borned on ca soil even both parents are not citizens? But once the new bill is passed, things will change, right?

 

[Maryjane11]

BTW what if parents of such child want to apply through skilled labour program? Will they be turned down? or the kid's citizenship will be affected in any way?

 

[eileenf]

There is quite a good nos. of people around the world who's children are born in US and Canada. As of now both country did not ban birth tourism. Most of people giving their children birth in these countries are affluent and pay the hospital bills (approx. 4/5K).

There are no serious and realistic efforts to ban US birthright citizenship. Yes, some politicians suggest it once in awhile, but it has never been a realistic plausibility in the US.

Canada is another story.

Most of people giving their children birth in these countries are affluent and pay the hospital bills (approx. 4/5K).

I would be very interested if you have a source for this? Specifically related to Canada. There are very few actual statistics as far as I've seen (which was one of the criticisms of the now rescinded Tory plan to revoke Canadian birth right citizenship; that it was based on unsubstantiated, unquantified anecdotal information rather than actual research or information).

 

[eileenf]

You know... for rich/noble people, it doesn't really matter where they are, the word "future" won't change its meaning much. Plus, if they do the birth tourism, there is probably a higher chance they will pay the bills and send their kids to good private schools. I have nothing to complain.

Paying one's bills doesn't mean that something is ethical.

 

[keesio]

There are no serious and realistic efforts to ban US birthright citizenship. Yes, some politicians suggest it once in awhile, but it has never been a realistic plausibility in the US.

Canada is another story.

You can argue that Canada is a more attractive place to get a citizenship than the USA in cases like this. Unlike the USA, Canada taxes by residency only. All those kids with a US citizenship that are abroad have to file (and possibly pay) US taxes when they turn 18 since the US taxes by citizenship too. Canada doesn't do this so in terms of a "backup", a Canadian citizenship is less headache (and less costly)

 

[on-hold]

Let the Republicans win an election or two in the States and FATCA, and possibly extraterritorial collection of taxes, will be gone.

It pains me that the one area in the entire political spectrum of the United States where I agree with the GOP is also the one in which I am most self-interested . . .

 

[keesio]

Let the Republicans win an election or two in the States and FATCA, and possibly extraterritorial collection of taxes, will be gone.

It pains me that the one area in the entire political spectrum of the United States where I agree with the GOP is also the one in which I am most self-interested . . .

You overestimate how much the average Republican cares about the tax burden of its overseas citizens. Most do not care or it is at the bottom of their priority list. And most of the GOP politicians don't care either since our votes are too scattered to matter.

The only GOP politicians that give a crap about this are the tea party politicans. Rand Paul is the only politician so far that has strongly criticized FATCA and the only one listening to overseas Americans on this. So unless the GOP gets completely taken over by hardcore tea party and libertarians, any hope of changes in this policy is wishful thinking.

 

[on-hold]

You might be right -- though I think you underestimate how much the GOP hates the IRS and tax collection in general, since it is one tiny pinprick to the skin of their extremely rich paymasters. I have total faith in both the willingness and the ability of the GOP to completely hamstring tax collection, auditing, etc., and include FATCA in that; perhaps not formally at first, but just by defunding and not staffing certain offices.

I still want the Democrats to retain control, of course . . . Though I was astonished a few months ago, when on a thread concerning this on a liberal blog, I mentioned that FATCA was really unfair in basic ways (esp. with regards to RESPs), and I was deluged with comments by liberals about how I should suck it up, follow the law, pay my taxes and stop whining for special treatment. It was kind of weird -- I think that so many people have been locked into the partisan fights there for so long, that they just aren't interested in an expats perspective that might not fall along the regular left/right divide.

 

[eileenf]

I agree Keesio. The FATCA issues have also been framed very successfully as closing tax cheat loopholes for high roller US residents' tax havens, Swiss banks, etc. It's not well known that it applies to every foreign resident and all their legitimate banking in their home country, grandchildren's college accounts are treated like Cayman Island tax dodges and saddled with filing requirements clearly intended for corporate lawyers.

So here again we get back to the issue at hand; when politicians crack down on loophole-exploiting bigwigs, a lot of non-bigwigs get hurt too.

When we talk about birth tourism, it gives further fuel to the fire that all immigrants (and most especially the far more vulnerable refugees) are scammers or loophole exploiters who don't care about Canada and don't contribute to the common good of the country.

 

[keesio]

You might be right -- though I think you underestimate how much the GOP hates the IRS and tax collection in general, since it is one tiny pinprick to the skin of their extremely rich paymasters. I have total faith in both the willingness and the ability of the GOP to completely hamstring tax collection, auditing, etc., and include FATCA in that; perhaps not formally at first, but just by defunding and not staffing certain offices.

yes the GOP is the party of anti-tax in general. But the concerns of expats overseas is at the bottom of the list in priority. Because our issues are not really the same as theirs. For us, it is less the taxes we owe and more the actual requirement to file that is the issue. And for us, the filing process is so complex and it causes a lot of angst and often can be expensive because many of us have to hire good accountants to handle it. And we can't take full advantage of certain benefits like RRSP, RESP and mutual funds, etc. None of this applies to the average American/GOPer so they don't care. So, no, we cannot expect much help from the GOP.

I still want the Democrats to retain control, of course . . . Though I was astonished a few months ago, when on a thread concerning this on a liberal blog, I mentioned that FATCA was really unfair in basic ways (esp. with regards to RESPs), and I was deluged with comments by liberals about how I should suck it up, follow the law, pay my taxes and stop whining for special treatment. It was kind of weird -- I think that so many people have been locked into the partisan fights there for so long, that they just aren't interested in an expats perspective that might not fall along the regular left/right divide.

One of the senior respected members of ACA (American Citizens Abroad) went into a thinkprogress.org forum discussing FATCA to plead our case and they all attacked her as some "greedy rich *censored word*" not wanting to "pay her fair share". To them, we are all rich people trying to hide our money to avoid paying our fair share. You were astonished but not me. The hard left is as loony and radical as the hard right. Basically what most people really cares about is what benefits them. Case in point is one ACA member who moved abroad who was very left-wing when she joined (going on about evil Republicans, etc). When she found out she was supposed to be filing taxes, she freaked when she found out she was a tax dodger and said this is unfair. Guess where she is heading in 2016... "Stand with Rand". She went from Trotsky to Tea Party in a year. No joke. Ok so she is an extreme case (and was also quite young and as we all know young people can be swayed pretty quickly) but still, it is an example of "I don't care until it happens to me". People from both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this.