jwtimmon

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...2014-1.2508758

Zoe Bell

I don't understand the comment about "passport babies". I know that the child would be a Canadian citizen but surely that's of no use to the parents.
Can a child sponsor parents at that age? I didn't think so.

Is there a path to PR for the parents that I'm unaware of or this along the lines of the myth of the American "anchor babies?"

SchnookoLoly

Obviously, no, the child won't be able to sponsor immediately, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the parents are thinking 18 years into the future when they are getting on in age, and hey look, they have a kid who can help them settle somewhere else! (And I can see some families using this as a guilt-trip...)

In addition, some families may simply be doing it so that they can provide better opportunities for their children. If they are from a more impoverished or oppressive country, the parents may opt to have their child in Canada so that they can have better access to education, health care, etc, and they can get this without needing to pay international schooling fees, apply for visas, etc. It's a way to give their child an "in" into a country like Canada, instead of requiring the individual to earn status in Canada based on their own merits. (To be clear, I'm not expressing an opinion on the morality/ethics of these situations, just presenting a side of the coin.)

FlyingDutchman6666

The story vaguely mentions 'shorter wait times, longer to qualify'.

I wouldn't be surprised if the qualifying period went up from 3 to 5 years. Quite how they plan on making the wait times shorter is anyone's guess...

Zoe Bell

easy !
you become eligible to apply after 3 years but can only obtain after 5 years.

That way the requirements have changed on paper but haven't in reality!

MarylandNed

I'm not sure what you don't you understand about it. With some exceptions (e.g. children of diplomats), anyone born in Canada is a Canadian citizen by birth. What they want to end is the concept of visitors (legal and illegal) coming to Canada with the specific purpose of giving birth in Canada in order to bestow Canadian citizenship on their children. That's the primary issue. Whether the parents expect the child to grow up and later sponsor them for permanent residence is maybe a secondary issue.

orly

If the parents were bogus refugees then you'd go for removal. But "my child was born here!" would be an obvious spanner in the works. Cue years of back and forth.

MarylandNed

Ok now I think I see what you don't understand. Under any new proposal, the child might NOT automatically be a Canadian citizen by birth. Rather, this would depend on the immigration status of the parents - similar to how Canada currently treats the children of diplomats and also similar to what some other countries do (including the UK) when determining citizenship by birth.

Zoe Bell

I did skim read , That makes more sense. I think Australia does something similar as well.

I do think that there is a common misconception that having baby in a country gains you some kind of immediate immigration benefit

MarylandNed

Maybe in some cases, but that's not the primary issue that they are trying to solve - the primary issue is restricting the current automatic right to Canadian citizenship by birth. However, if they restrict that right, then they will also automatically solve the issue you're talking about because the child wouldn't have Canadian citizenship in the first place.

I think most parents are thinking about their children - not necessarily some immigration benefit for themselves that might be at least 20 years down the road if ever. That's why some Mexican women try to cross the border into the US and give birth to their babies in the desert.

orly

How does that fit with:

"While the rule changes will be significant, Alexander said the government won't touch the issue of whether Canada ought to continue granting citizenship just because a person is born here — at least not right away."

Or is there some other detail I missed.

MarkG

As mentioned above, once you have a kid, you can at least go whining about how their human rights are being violated if you're deported.

In fact, presumably the kid can't be deported, so the government are screwed if they try to send the parents back.

MarylandNed

He's simply saying that the next round of immigration changes won't deal with this issue. It probably needs more thought and discussion. But it's been on the table for a while and it likely will be dealt with at some point. I was simply describing how it will work when it does get implemented i.e. Canadian citizenship by birth won't be automatic but will be tied to the immigration status of the parents (not just for diplomats).

MarylandNed

A Canadian citizen child can't be deported but the non-citizen parents can be deported. How many parents would leave their kid behind? This is the type of issue that would be solved by making Canadian citizenship by birth dependent on the immigration status of the parents.

orly

A tough question. If you were being sent back to Sudan or some other less than enticing location you might have an unenviable decision to make.