Abolishing Birthright Citizenship Is Infinitely Easier In Canada Than USA

According to a 2022 analysis from Canada’s Immigration Department, between 2007 and 2018 around 1–2% of births were from temporary residents such as foreign workers, international students, and asylum seekers. Despite being born to foreign parents, the babies in these cases are full citizens entitled to all of the benefits thereof. Indeed, they could put their hat in the ring for Prime Minister if they so desired.

The absurdity of this violation of Canada’s integrity as a sovereign country is further compounded by the national insult of birth tourism, a practice where foreign mothers with zero connection to Canada fly here to give birth to babies who are instantly citizens. In Richmond Hospital in Richmond, BC, non-residents account for 7.3% of births.

The US Supreme Court has ruled against President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship in the United States. Supporters of immigration restriction in Canada should not be troubled by this development. While the path to ending birthright citizenship in the USA requires wading through a constitutional quagmire, ending it in Canada remains an exceedingly simple affair.

The issue in the United States is that birthright citizenship is afforded constitutional protection by the 14th Amendment, which states plainly that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”.

American conservatives and immigration restrictionists often point out that this sentence was intended for the children of freed slaves following Emancipation, but regardless of the motivation behind it the birthright clause is worded so neutrally and broadly that it covers most everyone born on American soil. Precedent was set in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a landmark decision which ruled that a Chinese man born in San Francisco was an American citizen.

The original crafters of the 14th Amendment birthright provision undoubtedly did not intend that in the 21st century it would come to apply to the children of visa overstayers, foreign students, birth tourists, and illegal immigrants from Central and South America – but it does.

Rather than attempting the arduous process of amending the US Constitution, President Trump attempted to curtail birthright citizenship through an executive order in January 2025. The Supreme Court has now struck this order down in a 6-3 ruling. One judge – Trump appointee Justice Brett Kavanaugh – did not rule on constitutional grounds, voting with the majority but only because of his understanding that Trump’s executive order violated federal legislation rather than the US Constitution per se. The constitutional protection of birthright citizenship can thus be said to have survived by a 5-4 margin.

Recovering quickly, President Trump is now planning to end birthright citizenship through Congress, putting out an energetic statement on Truth Social to that effect:

“The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process. No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

Trump’s new strategy relies on Justice Kavanaugh’s argument that Trump’s original executive order merely violated federal legislation rather than the US Constitution, and thus that birthright citizenship can be ended through legislation. This plan is a Hail Mary that relies on a theory put forth by a single Supreme Court Justice, when a majority of the Court just ruled that birthright citizenship is constitutionally protected.

Going forward, if a US administration wants to end birthright citizenship, it will either have to change the composition of the Supreme Court (the success of which is outside of any administration’s control, hinging on how many appointments happen to come up) or change the US Constitution. This last option requires the support of two-thirds of Congress and Senate, and ratification by 38 of 50 US states.

Now, contrast the labyrinthian, tortuous uphill climb faced by opponents of birthright citizenship in the United States with the straight and comfortable amble through the meadows that Canadian immigration restrictionists can look forward to.

To end birthright citizenship in Canada, we would just need to change the Citizenship Act. That’s all. In Canada, birthright citizenship is not afforded constitutional protection, so it can be modified or even ended entirely by Parliament. The Act currently states that a person is a citizen if “the person was born in Canada”. To end birthright citizenship, we could simply add eight words: “…and one of their parents is a citizen”.

Enacting this important change will require the mustering of sufficient political will, but once that will is generated, the process of ending birthright citizenship will be substantially easier in Canada than in the USA. Supporters of immigration restriction should work energetically towards this goal.