So Poilievre Doesn’t Like Birthright Citizenship

 I see that Poilievre has borrowed another page from GOP politics - this time he’s going after birthright citizenship.  

Birthright citizenship is really nothing more than “if you are born in Canada, you are deemed to be a Canadian Citizen.  It’s really that simple - in a nation that was literally built out of immigration, it makes a certain amount of sense that we might look at citizenship through such a lens.  Many of us were born here when one, or both parents, were not yet citizens themselves.  

Frankly, when the subject comes up, nobody seems to have any idea what pressing problem Canada is facing would be solved by revoking birthright citizenship.  Are there suddenly a whole bunch of citizens of Canada that are causing problems because they aren’t “Canadian enough” for Pierre’s tastes?  Or is this a revisitation of Harper’s infamous “Old Stock Canadians” nonsense? 

I’ve seen a few people whine about “anchor babies”, or “birth tourism”.  Of those arguments, I am inclined to be more than a little suspicious that the people making that argument are doing so more because they don’t like the idea of people from certain cultural backgrounds.  However, so-called “birth tourism” babies are hardly a large number of Canada’s births - some 5,000 or so annually, on a total birth rate of ~365,000 - and nobody has demonstrated that those 5,000 births are resulting in “a problem” for Canada.  

Frankly, the problem I see with this is that it creates a whole subclass of people who are born in Canada, may live their lives here, and are denied citizenship because of their parents’ circumstances at the time they were born.  

Additionally, it gives politicians with malicious intentions an easy tool upon which to make the lives of Canadians more difficult.  Removing birthright citizenship suddenly means that a person who has lived in Canada their entire lives could have to prove not only their citizenship, but also that of their parents.  

Consider some of the possible scenarios:  

Someone travels to Canada for work reasons, and for one reason or another has a child while residing and working in Canada.  Subsequently they decide to become a permanent resident.  Does the child's status follow that of the parent?  Or have we just created a situation where the child, having been born here to a person classified as "temporary" ends up effectively stateless?  

Or, let's say the child becomes an adult (18 years old) when the parent finally gains Permanent Resident status.  What then?  Do we suddenly deport that 18 year old to a country they have no experience with?  

Similarly, let's say that a child of a "temporary resident" grows up in Canada, and applies for citizenship under this new regime.  Do we then demand that they go through the same process of applying for "Permanent Resident" status, and then on to citizenship a decade later?  Do we demand that they apply through the same immigration system that they would have to apply through if they were coming from abroad, and they would have to "qualify" under the admission criteria?  Does that make any kind of sense?  

Let's consider the case of someone who has been born and grown up in Canada.  Regardless of the status of their parents, they are asked if they are citizens.  Now the question rests not on "where were you born?", but "who were your parents, and what was their immigration status when you were born?".  I dare say most adults in the country would have a very hard time proving the citizenship status of their parents - especially if their parents are deceased, or their documentation isn't readily available.  

It creates an environment where, like the US, a huge amount of energy is wasted on "finding illegal residents".  This will stratify society further, making a subclass of people who live here, and may have done so their entire lives, who have no legal status.  As we have seen in the US, that subclass of people becomes ruthlessly exploited by employers looking for cheap labour they can abuse. 

I'm not arguing that our immigration systems are perfect or ideal.  They need work - a lot of it.  There is an honest discussion to be had around what immigration to Canada should look like, and how the various streams should flow.  Stripping birthright citizenship from the equation creates problems, it does not solve them.  

Poilievre's tirade doesn't make Canada a safer place, it makes Canada a much more dangerous place for the people who live here already.  

Using Passports To Revoke Citizenship

The Canadian government has taken a disturbing turn in recent years, and under the Conservatives, it has become amplified.

There have been several cases that have hit the media in recent years that bear consideration. In particular, I want to draw attention to the cases of Abousfian Abdelrazik and Suaad Hagi Mohamud. In both of these cases, the Canadian government has acted to deny Canadian citizens access to the documents needed to return home.

In the first case, the government acted for several years to deny Mr. Abdelrazik the right to return to Canada. In the second case, the government spent 2 full months denying Ms. Mohamud's identity in spite of corroborating documentation.

Both of these are extremely serious cases. They represent a government acting to deny its acknowledged citizens the right to return home. Canada does not have a "two tier" citizenship policy - it is not easier to strip citizenship from somebody because they immigrated to Canada rather than being born here - although past Reform/Alliance party tirades have suggested that many within the party would like to do just that.

So ... instead of attempting to revoke citizenships, the Conservatives have chosen to use this tactic of revoking passports and denying replacements to their victims. A few have made their way into the public spotlight, but how many more have been quietly muzzled in some foreign prison?

As for those that argue that the government has no obligations to you when you travel abroad, I argue that the government is in fact morally and legally obligated to provide assistance - and certainly not act in a manner that deliberately obstructs a citizen trying to return home. The moral case is trivial; the legal case is rooted in the Charter of Rights and its guarantees of mobility and security of the person. (Which, one can arguably claim the government is violating both of in these cases)

[Update 20:05 13/08/09]:
I see that once again, the Harper Con$ are persuaded to take actual action (or at least talk about it) once the political heat gets high enough. When it takes public outrage before the government acts on behalf of its citizens, it is no longer a government that represents the people it claims to govern.
[/Update]