Child permanent residence

[keesio]

If your argument of "its a matter of principle" then we shouldn't be paying income tax today. It should have been ended after the world wars since it was enacted to pay for the war effort. It hasn't been repealed since then. The principle of the income tax was to support the war as the income tax was suppose to be temporary. And yet here we are still paying income tax to this day.

I'm not complaining about income tax. I'm complaining about taxation by citizenship, not residency. And even though there are things like foreign tax credits and foreign earned income exclusion to minimize the tax burden if you are not a resident, it is so complex to file that you often have to pay hundreds to an accountant to prove to the US that you own them nothing (or a minimal amount) while I can go pay $20 for TurboTax for my Canadian taxes. Why is the USA the only country that puts their overseas citizens through this?

 

[screech339]

I'm not complaining about income tax. I'm complaining about taxation by citizenship, not residency. And even though there are things like foreign tax credits and foreign earned income exclusion to minimize the tax burden if you are not a resident, it is so complex to file that you often have to pay hundreds to an accountant to prove to the US that you own them nothing (or a minimal amount) while I can go pay $20 for TurboTax for my Canadian taxes. Why is the USA the only country that puts their overseas citizens through this?

I know what you mean. My 2 kids will start filing US taxes when they start working and yet they will not likely move to the US, although I can't stop that, it would be their decision.

I have no answer for you on the US tax filing rules. It is only to support their massive debt/government spending.

On the income tax being temporary, I was trying to make a point if someone wants to keep their the status quo due to their "matter of prinicple" excuse. It just reeks of elitism and/or right of entitlements.

 

[frege]

Unless the birthright of citizenship is written in the constitution itself (like the US consititution, I may be wrong on that) and your only argument is "it is a matter of principle", it is a poor defence of an argument. Since it is not written in the constitution, citizenship laws can be revised. If it is a matter of prinicple, then we should all accept quebec value charter as "it is a matter of prinicple". Just because quebec introduced the charter out of "a matter of principle". I have to agree with the quebec charter (which I don't) according to you.

The citizenship laws have been revised already and can be revised again if the people calls for it. If the people wants the government to repeal the birth right of citizenship then the government must answer to them.

Also are you saying Canada cannot look after themselves and makes their own rules in terms of governing ourselves or we just play follow the leaders of what do other countries in the western hemisphere are doing just because they have the same laws. According to you, every country in the western hemisphere must have federal income tax as this is not the case. There are a few countries that are income tax free on this side of the world. These tax free countries must start implimenting income tax because Canada/US and others are doing it too. I mean who cares what these other countries laws are. Their laws doesn't affect us nor do their laws dictate how we do our own laws. Whatever the other countries do to their laws, that's their business, not ours. And vis versa, what we do with our laws is our business, not theirs.

If we want to change our citizenship laws, that is people of Canada business to decide. Not US, not Mexico, not other countries of the western hemisphere.

Screech339

Screech,

My opposition to the current laws are based on the fact that they have disastrous consequences for some Canadians' children, and the costs far outweigh any benefits. I'm not disputing the right of Canada to adopt its own laws.

The principle of birthright citizenship, in my view, is tied to the notion of equality of all Canadians. Simply redefining some people as "not Canadian" is an underhanded way of violating this principle. For example, in Athens all citizens were equal. But there were also large classes of non-citizens (including slaves), so this equality was a sham. This is why birthright citizenship is a strong, morally principled response to the desire for all of us to be equal.

There are some limits on how we can change our citizenship laws, in any case. For example, there is a right under international law to have a nationality. So if Canada adopted laws that resulted in people born on its soil being stateless, that is not a choice it can legitimately make.

Also, a minimum level of coherence is required if we are to support citizenship laws. We cannot, as a matter of principle, adopt laws such that if other countries adopted the same laws, then it would result in some people being stateless.

Remember that if Canada doesn't grant citizenship to someone born here, then it is placing a duty on other countries to grant citizenship to that person. What about that country's right to determine its own laws? It is illegitimate for Canada to expect other countries to grant citizenship to a person, where if the situation were reversed, Canada itself wouldn't even grant citizenship. Canada may legally be able to do this, but it is of questionable morality.

I asked a simple question, which is what, in your opinion, is the basic thing that makes (or ought to make) someone a citizen of a country? That simple question should have at least one simple answer which would allow everyone to have a nationality. This is the "principle" to which I'm referring.

 

[screech339]

The principle of birthright citizenship, in my view, is tied to the notion of equality of all Canadians.

The equality of all Canadians you say. Don't forget equality of PRs. They have equal right to earn citizenship if they so desired after meeting qualifications.

Keeping that in mind, don't by adding the condition of one of parents to be Canadian/PR to birth right still give them equal rights to birthright of citizenship of their newborn? Are you saying those here in Canada illegal or otherwise have the same rights to citizenship by birth of their newborn? Are you telling me that pregnant women who come here for the purpose of having a Canadian baby is being fair to PRs who worked so hard to get here on their own merits who want their children to be raised here as Canadians, or fair to Canadians who are already here. If you want to talk about matter of principle, it is a matter of principle that Canadians/PRs deserve to retain that right of birthright of their children and no one else?

Look what is happening to US south of the US border. The illegal Mexicans/Latinos are coming in to have American babies. And now it is getting much harder to kick out the illegals that have American kids. US is not going to be able to amend the constitution as it would probably require consent of all 50 states. I am sure many of the southern states bordering Mexico are not going to let US change it. Fortunately for Canada it is not written in our constitution thus it can be revised to avoid US's unintended consequences of citizenship birthrights.

 

[screech339]

Since the forum would not allow me to revise older posts. In an previous post, I mentioned that US will bail out Americans if they stayed in a foreign country less than 6 months. Here is my corrections.

I was mistaken about the US 6 month rule of bailing out Americans out of foreign countries in times of crisis. There was no 6 month rule. However I stand corrected that US government does not help out Americans out of taxpayers expense. US government expects that it is the American's responsibility in getting themselves out at their own expense. You are pretty much on your own in foreign countries unless you got the money to pay to US government to bail you out.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/emergencies/emergencies_1212.html

Here is the link about expectations of Americans in foreign countries that is in need of crisis.

Will the U.S. government pay for my travel? How much will it cost?

Departure assistance is expensive. U.S. law 22 U.S.C. 2671(b) (2) (A) requires that any departure assistance be provided “on a reimbursable basis to the maximum extent practicable.” This means that evacuation costs are ultimately your responsibility; you will be asked to sign a form promising to repay the U.S. government. We charge you the equivalent of a full coach fare on commercial air at the time that commercial options cease to be a viable option. You will be taken to a nearby safe location, where the traveler will need to make his or her own onward travel arrangements. If you are destitute, and private resources are not available to cover the cost of onward travel, you may be eligible for emergency financial assistance.

Screech339

 

[frege]

The equality of all Canadians you say. Don't forget equality of PRs. They have equal right to earn citizenship if they so desired after meeting qualifications.

Keeping that in mind, don't by adding the condition of one of parents to be Canadian/PR to birth right still give them equal rights to birthright of citizenship of their newborn? Are you saying those here in Canada illegal or otherwise have the same rights to citizenship by birth of their newborn? Are you telling me that pregnant women who come here for the purpose of having a Canadian baby is being fair to PRs who worked so hard to get here on their own merits who want their children to be raised here as Canadians, or fair to Canadians who are already here. If you want to talk about matter of principle, it is a matter of principle that Canadians/PRs deserve to retain that right of birthright of their children and no one else?

Look what is happening to US south of the US border. The illegal Mexicans/Latinos are coming in to have American babies. And now it is getting much harder to kick out the illegals that have American kids. US is not going to be able to amend the constitution as it would probably require consent of all 50 states. I am sure many of the southern states bordering Mexico are not going to let US change it. Fortunately for Canada it is not written in our constitution thus it can be revised to avoid US's unintended consequences of citizenship birthrights.

I think that any baby born in Canada should have a right to equality with all other babies born in Canada. If this is where you came from, then you have a right to be here.

Yes, I think it's fair to Canadians already here. If temporary workers, students, or illegal immigrants have a child here, that's not going to affect me positively or negatively versus a Canadian having a child here. One of the children isn't going to be a better or worse Canadian than the other, or cost me more or less. I'm happy to welcome anyone born here into our society as an equal member.

You still haven't answered clearly what you think ought to be the basic thing that makes a person a citizen of a country.

Here are a few possible answers:

1) Where you were born. If all countries adopted this principle, everybody would be a citizen of somewhere, so at least it's coherent. If you start saying "where you were born, but...", then all of a sudden there are people without a nationality. (For me, this should be the basic rule, and then you could add additional cases where a person would also be a citizen. But you can't take away from it.)

2) What your father's nationality is. Many Muslim countries go by this rule. I think it's sexist and I don't agree with it, but at least there is a minimum logic in that everybody has a nationality this way. I don't know what the rules are for children without a known father - they'd need a rule for that too, but this is a minor adaptation.

3) What your parents' nationalities are. Not sexist, but I still don't think this should be the main rule. Again, if you start adding restrictions, there will be people born with no nationality.

So what is your answer? What is the basic thing that should make a person a citizen of a country?

If your answer is "born in the country + one parent a PR or citizen", then the system doesn't work because some children won't have any nationality this way. This would certainly be the case if the parents' country of citizenship had straight birthright citizenship as its only rule.

Didn't you say countries had a right to adopt their own citizenship laws? Don't the children's parents' countries have that right too? In this case, why is it up to the parents' countries to give the child citizenship rather than Canada, if those countries only believe in birthright citizenship?

 

[screech339]

It seems to me that you are very worried about children becoming stateless. And for good reasons. We wouldn't want that. If any child born in canada became stateless under the conditions to birthright citizenship, by all means give canada citizenship to them. The number of cases of child becoming stateless in canada would be so small since the child will get nationality by descent or right of blood. Remember the parent must prove that the child is actually stateless. Hard to do that when they have nationality by descent.

So this approach will still give everyone nationality, even suit your right that everyone has a nationality.

Screech339

 

[truesmile]

I think that any baby born in Canada should have a right to equality with all other babies born in Canada. If this is where you came from, then you have a right to be here.

You still haven't answered clearly what you think ought to be the basic thing that makes a person a citizen of a country.

Here are a few possible answers:

1) Where you were born.
. . .

I'm ALL for option #1, and it seems that you don't agree with #2 or #3. Just my two cents.

 

[frege]

It seems to me that you are very worried about children becoming stateless. And for good reasons. We wouldn't want that. If any child born in canada became stateless under the conditions to birthright citizenship, by all means give canada citizenship to them. The number of cases of child becoming stateless in canada would be so small since the child will get nationality by descent or right of blood. Remember the parent must prove that the child is actually stateless. Hard to do that when they have nationality by descent.

So this approach will still give everyone nationality, even suit your right that everyone has a nationality.

Screech339

Well, yes I am worried about children being stateless. That's the most important thing.

But secondly, I think there's a serious problem with your scheme if you're not ready to say either that

a) being born in country A makes you a citizen of country A - in a completely unqualified way, and not just as an exception based on the particular rules in your parents' countries; or

b) having a parent from country A makes you a citizen of country A, again with this being a normal way of obtaining citizenship, without restrictions.

I understand that you're now willing to make exceptions for stateless children, and that's good, but I don't think it's enough, because one of these two things should be enough to convince country A that you belong to it, not just that it will be forced to take you if nobody else claims you.

Option (a) is the better one, because it's the least likely to lead to large groups of people with lower status living in a country. It draws a clear line that any inequality will stop after one generation at most - the people from outside Canada might have fewer rights, but never their children who are from here.

You don't seem willing to say either of (a) or (b) clearly, and I think that it's unfortunate, because I don't think that excluding people from Canada actually adds "value" to Canadian citizenship (to use the Tories' word), as if Canada was some kind of giant pie to be divided up between its citizens. In fact, every child born in Canada is equally likely to make this a better country, regardless of their parents' nationality. So if anything, the pie will be that much bigger every time a child is born.

I am surprised that you are unable to appreciate the democratic and egalitarian appeal of birthright citizenship. Giving it up would I think knock Canada down a rung or two in its moral standing, and that's not something I'm willing to do, even if the UK has done it.

 

[frege]

I'm ALL for option #1, and it seems that you don't agree with #2 or #3. Just my two cents.

What I'm saying is that if your nationality laws are going to make any sense, you can't have less than a full option 1 (birthright citizenship), or less than a full option 3 (citizenship by descent). (Or option 2, I guess.)

I'm for option 1 as the basic rule, but I'm also for option 3 as an additional way of getting citizenship, perhaps with some restrictions.

I'm in favour of option 3 for two reasons. First, as a matter of practice, many other countries where your children might be born don't have birthright citizenship. So it's a safeguard in that sense. Second, children of Canadians will often want to live in Canada, either as children or as adults later on. This should be a right rather than something that needs to be applied for. Canadians shouldn't have to worry too much about where their children are born. Reasonable restrictions to this rule are possible, but I disagree with the current laws because I find the restrictions unreasonable.

In doubt, it's better to be generous than stingy, because we really have very little to gain by being stingy. An occasional evacuation of citizens overseas is not the be-all and end-all of citizenship laws, and I'd be willing to bet that there were vanishingly few Lebanese Canadians evacuated who were second generation born abroad, with a Canadian grandparent. So the Tories' solution is a non-solution to a problem that barely exists. Even for the handful of grandchildren of Canadians that might have been in Lebanon (because grandchildren are what we're talking about), I don't think they were less deserving of help from our government than I would be in the same situation.

None of this is worth it considering the headaches these laws may cause to a whole new generation of "Lost Canadians."

 

[screech339]

Well, yes I am worried about children being stateless. That's the most important thing.

But secondly, I think there's a serious problem with your scheme if you're not ready to say either that

a) being born in country A makes you a citizen of country A - in a completely unqualified way, and not just as an exception based on the particular rules in your parents' countries; or

b) having a parent from country A makes you a citizen of country A, again with this being a normal way of obtaining citizenship, without restrictions.

I understand that you're now willing to make exceptions for stateless children, and that's good, but I don't think it's enough, because one of these two things should be enough to convince country A that you belong to it, not just that it will be forced to take you if nobody else claims you.

Option (a) is the better one, because it's the least likely to lead to large groups of people with lower status living in a country. It draws a clear line that any inequality will stop after one generation at most - the people from outside Canada might have fewer rights, but never their children who are from here.

You don't seem willing to say either of (a) or (b) clearly, and I think that it's unfortunate, because I don't think that excluding people from Canada actually adds "value" to Canadian citizenship (to use the Tories' word), as if Canada was some kind of giant pie to be divided up between its citizens. In fact, every child born in Canada is equally likely to make this a better country, regardless of their parents' nationality. So if anything, the pie will be that much bigger every time a child is born.

I am surprised that you are unable to appreciate the democratic and egalitarian appeal of birthright citizenship. Giving it up would I think knock Canada down a rung or two in its moral standing, and that's not something I'm willing to do, even if the UK has done it.

I know what you are trying to do. Trying to give me options that would make be contradict my solutions. For example option 1) being born in Canada. Sure option 1 is my prefer definition to determine nationality to those who citizens or settled residents. Not illegal immigrants or those who are not "settled".

I'm proud to be born a canadian citizen in canada to parents who are also canadians. I would be equally proud of canadian citizen who was born to naturalized Canadians parents. I am also equally proud of canadians born in canada to PRs. What I am not proud of is of Canadians born in Canada to illegal immigrants or born in Canada to those who came over to have a baby in Canada. As far as I'm concerned they cheapened the value of our canadian citizenship.

So you want an answer about which option I prefer? Sure option 1 to canadians/PRs. Not to illegal immigrants or immigrants that want to produce anchor babies.

Don't you think that if something is hard to get, it becomes more valuable. Like a rare coin. If making our canadian citizenship a little bit harder to get, wouldn't it make our citizenship worth more to those who have it? Those who worked hard to get into Camada to earn it? Wouldn't Canadians feel more proud of being Canadians if their citizenship isn't so easily gotten by illegal immigrants/ birth tourists /immigration fraud. So the 3 option by descent would protect babies from becoming stateless due to no birth right citizenship. So again by adding condition to option 1 born birthright to canadians/PRs and option 3 together, the child will still likely to have a nationality to parents of illegal immigrants/birth tourists born in Canada.

In a similiar analogy, if all people in Canada has gotten an university degree, wouldn't that cheapens the value of your degree if everyone got it. You spend thousands of dollars to get a degree and yet the degree isn't that valuable because because everyone got one too. You would still end up working a job at minimum wage or not much more. Didn't you go to university to get a good paying job with a degree that is hard to get or so few available? This applies the same to our canadian citizenship. If we can make our citizenship a little harder to get, it just makes our citizenship all the more valuable and worth it?

A child born in Canada stateless would be so small since a large majority of countries are signatory to stateless rules. US is not part of it. So if an illegal immigrant were to come to Canada and have a baby, due to its own country is likely a signatory to removing stateless, therefore must grant its citizenship to the baby by parent's national descent.

I think by adopting the british amendment to citizenship laws, it really protect our citizenship from abuse and from illegal immigrants and drastically reduce the birth tourism industry.

Screech339

 

[frege]

I know what you are trying to do. Trying to give me options that would make be contradict my solutions. For example option 1) being born in Canada. Sure option 1 is my prefer definition to determine nationality to those who citizens or settled residents. Not illegal immigrants or those who are not "settled".

Yes, I am trying to pin you down, because you seem so concerned about diluting the "value" of Canadian citizenship that you've lost sight of the fact that logically, there has to be at least one way of obtaining citizenship that is considered completely normal and not subject to restrictions. Citizenship is not just a privilege of a person, it is also a duty that a country owes its own people. If you start chipping away at what "its own people" means, then you create two categories of people - those with full equality rights and those without. I don't want to take even one step down that path.

So you want an answer about which option I prefer? Sure option 1 to canadians/PRs. Not to illegal immigrants or immigrants that want to produce anchor babies.

Don't you think that if something is hard to get, it becomes more valuable. Like a rare coin. If making our canadian citizenship a little bit harder to get, wouldn't it make our citizenship worth more to those who have it? Those who worked hard to get into Camada to earn it? Wouldn't Canadians feel more proud of being Canadians if their citizenship isn't so easily gotten by illegal immigrants/ birth tourists /immigration fraud.

No, citizenship doesn't work like that. If one extra baby is born Canadian, that is one extra person contributing to Canadian society and giving to everyone, not just one person taking away from everyone else.

Of course, some people may be born with Canadian citizenship and don't care to come to Canada, or stay here. That's fine too. They're neither giving nor taking away from the rest of us. If they choose to use their Canadian passport someday, fine, they can come back.

And no baby that I've ever heard of worked hard to be born in Canada. At a basic level, this is about his right to be at home in the country he's from.

When a child is born with dual citizenship, I admit he has an advantage - he can choose the place he was born or his parents' country. But when a child is born, you can't easily predict which of these is going to be most important for him. You can't decide in advance whether it makes the most sense for him to live where he was born or in his parents' country. This will only become clear as his circumstances develop. If he has only one citizenship, it is much more likely to create hardship for him than having a single citizenship does for those of us who are born in our parents' country.

This thing about evacuations is really a red herring. Citizenship is mainly about who can come and live and work freely in Canada and contribute to our society, not about who can be evacuated from troubled areas. And as I said before, the number of grandchildren of Canadians in Lebanon in 2006 probably wasn't very high, so the government's response makes no sense.

So the 3 option by descent would protect babies from becoming stateless due to no birth right citizenship. So again by adding condition to option 1 born birthright to canadians/PRs and option 3 together, the child will still likely to have a nationality to parents of illegal immigrants/birth tourists born in Canada.

If the parents are from a country that limits citizenship by descent like Canada now does, then this might not be the case at all.

In this case, I understand you're willing to make an exception, but as I said I don't think this is enough, as it places the onus on the parents' country to extend citizenship, rather than Canada doing its duty to extend full rights to its own people.

If you don't want "anchor babies", then why don't you restrict sponsorship instead? I don't know that I would agree with that, but it would be preferable to ending a centuries-old democratic tradition of our country and our continent.

My understanding is that a good deal of the "birth tourism" that might exist in Canada is to do with Chinese people escaping the one-child policy, which I'm actually honoured Canada is helping them with. By the way, do you have any reliable estimates of the number of tourists who come to Canada for the purpose of giving birth?

 

[frege]

Screech,

Let me add something more personal on this issue.

I was born in Canada, and I have dual citizenship with the U.S. Neither of my parents were landed immigrants when I was born; they landed a few months later. My parents didn't come to Canada to "abuse" Canada's generosity, and I am not "devaluing" Canadian citizenship. According to your proposal, my parents would have had to apply for PR and then naturalization for me.

I was born Canadian, and though I also have a U.S. passport, I've lived here most of my life and only really ever considered myself Canadian. My parents never became naturalized until I was an adult, so I don't think they would have naturalized me as a child. (According to you, I'd only have had them to blame, not my birth country, right?)

I would not have appreciated the message it sent to me if Canada had told me I wasn't Canadian at birth. I think it potentially would have lessened my identification with the country. If the government tells you you're American only, you believe them, right?

In reality, my identity as a Canadian has always been ironclad - I cheered just like everybody else when the Kid scored in the final at Vancouver 2010. But perhaps if you had been in charge of things when I was born, I wouldn't have felt quite as Canadian as I do. I guess if that had been so, your advice would have been to either "become" Canadian or go back "where I came from," whatever that would have meant in my case. Thank God the government at that time knew that I didn't need to "become" something that I already was. Even if I had done that, it would only have been after being insulted by my own country.

Even as I've been debating this issue with you, it wasn't until a few moments ago that it occurred to me my parents weren't PRs when I was born. I've always been Canadian, and have never had to think about it before. The fact that this debate could even have been relevant to me personally is somewhat mind-boggling, and further reinforces in my mind that we should not be questioning the citizenship rights of those born in Canada, on any basis.

If you look around you, Screech, you'll probably see a lot of valuable members of your community who would not have been citizens at birth under your policy. You probably won't know who they are, but the reason you don't is precisely because we're all equal Canadians. And some of these people, if they'd been told they were not Canadian at birth, would have just accepted that negative message rather than "become" Canadian, as you think they should have to. Then your "rare coin" would be just a little bit less precious.

 

[screech339]

Frege,

By having a debate with you, you can bring good insight to my initial proposal. So you see I am being flexible in coming up with possible solutions to solving problems/eliminating unintended consequences. So I came up with these possible solutions to the birth tourism problem. What are your ideas in removing the birth tourism?

My concern is the issue of newborns of illegal immigrants/birth tourism happening in Canada. My suggestions are for the purpose of eliminating Birth Tourism and/or illegal immigrants delivering newborn in Canada. After considering my initial proposal to citizenship laws by restricting birthright citizenship to Canadian/PR parents only. It does leave other people in Canada that are legitimately living here, mainly people here on Student and Work visas. So I made different options, each with its effects of it. So please tell me which option is the best option to removing birth tourism in Canada.

Option 1: Initial: Birthright citizenships to parents of Canadians/PRs only.
Pro: 100% eliminate birth tourism
Con: People on Student/Work visas are left out.

Option 2. Birthright citizenship to parents of Canadians/PRs. If parents are not Canadian/PRs, the pregnant person delivering the newborn must be on Provincial Health Care at time of birth.
Pro: Includes people on Student/Work visas.
Con: Do not eliminate birth tourism 100%, since not all provinces have 3 months residency requirement. They can all go to Alberta for example to by-pass this loophole. Fed government cannot dictate how provinces handle their health care since health care in under provincial jurisdiction. Also pregnant people can keep extending their TRVs in Canada long enough to deliver newborn.

Option 3. Birthright citizenship to parents of Canadians/PR and those holding student/work visas only and those on student/work visas must be on provincial health care at time of birth.
Con: Does not eliminate birth tourism 100% as pregnant women will apply for student/work visa to by-pass the loophole.

As for providing statistics on the number of cases of birth tourism, it is hard to obtain/collect data on it due to patient/doctor confidentiality. It is probably one of the under-reported cases. It’s the same for finding statistics on abortions performed in Canada. You won’t find it but we all know it is happening. Even if we are able to come up with statistics, a lot of the cases go unreported. It is like the statistics on number of cases of rape. We all know the problem is much bigger than reported.

So please tell me which one of the options listed above will help solve the birth tourism? If you can't help me solve the birth tourism, like the saying goes, you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Screech339

 

[scylla]

Sorry if this is a stupid question - but is birth tourism really that big a problem in Canada? (I didn't think it was.) What are the stats?