Canada is known for its welcoming immigration policies, multicultural ethos, and as a top destination for students and skilled workers from around the world. But now, one of the country’s major political parties is pressing for a shift in one of the most fundamental principles of its citizenship laws: birthright citizenship.
In short — the Conservative Party of Canada, the primary opposition in Parliament, is campaigning to limit automatic citizenship for children born in Canada whose parents are non-permanent residents (such as international students or temporary workers). The proposal has reignited debates about fairness, identity, inclusion, and where Canada draws the line between openness and control.
Here’s a closer look at what’s happening, what’s at stake, and how this could reshape Canada’s future.
What’s Being Proposed: Curtailing Birthright Citizenship
Under the status quo in Canada, jus soli (right of the soil) prevails: any child born on Canadian territory generally becomes a Canadian citizen automatically, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
The Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, seeks to change that. They have launched a petition and advocacy campaign demanding that at least one parent must already have Canadian citizenship or permanent resident status in order for a child born in Canada to receive citizenship at birth.
Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner is driving the push, arguing that allowing children of two temporary residents to automatically gain citizenship is a loophole that needs closing.
Supporters of the proposal point out that other countries — including the UK, Germany, France, Australia, and New Zealand — already impose such requirements. The Conservatives argue that this move would bring Canadian policy in line with peer nations.
If adopted, the new rule would deny automatic Canadian citizenship to children born in Canada to two temporary residents (for example, two parents who are both on study or work permits).
Why the Push Now? Political, Social & Practical Motivations
1. Rising Anti-Immigrant Sentiment & Political Strategy
Canada, like many countries, is seeing a resurgence of anti-immigrant rhetoric. Part of the momentum behind the Conservatives’ proposal comes from public concerns over immigration’s impact on housing, healthcare, social services, and employment.
The Conservatives frame their campaign as responding to pressure from constituents who see temporary residents as stretching public resources. Their petition states that with over three million temporary residents and half a million undocumented persons, continued automatic citizenship for their children “will deeply impact Canada’s immigration system, housing, jobs, and social services.”
By foregrounding this issue, conservatives hope to appeal to voters who feel the system is being exploited, positioning themselves as defenders of fairness and control.
2. Aligning With Other Countries & Reform Narrative
The Conservatives also use the comparators argument: pointing to how countries like the UK, France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand already impose conditions on birthright citizenship.
By doing so, they frame their demand not as radical or discriminatory, but as catching up with “peer nations.” It gives their position a veneer of legitimacy — tapping into global norms rather than purely domestic pressure.
3. Control Over Immigration Trends
Even though the proposal targets citizenship and not directly immigration, it intersects with broader debates on how many newcomers Canada accepts and how to manage flows of temporary residents, students, and migrant workers. The Conservatives are pushing to restrict immigration in various forms, and this is one lever in that broader agenda.
By adjusting citizenship rules, the party might seek to reduce long-term claims to social benefits, demand more stringent paths from temporary to permanent status, and discourage “birth tourism” — the practice of arriving in a country primarily to give birth so that the child gains citizenship.
Reactions & Potential Backlash
Government & Political Resistance
So far, the governing Liberals have defended the principle of birthright citizenship, resisting sweeping changes.
When Rempel Garner sought to amend a government bill to add these restrictions, the immigration committee (composed of Liberal and Bloc Québécois MPs) rejected it.
The Conservatives will need more than committee wins; they’d likely require either a parliamentary majority or public support strong enough to sway the government.
Legal, Human Rights & Ethical Concerns
Critics warn that restricting birthright citizenship can:
- Create statelessness or legal limbo: Children born in Canada who do not receive citizenship at birth may end up with uncertain status, especially if their parents do not (or cannot) regularize their own status.
- Discriminate against non-citizens: Some view it as penalizing children for their parents’ immigration status — a principle many see as inconsistent with equality and human rights.
- Contradict Canada’s global image: Canada has long projected itself as open, inclusive, and immigrant-friendly. Abandoning birthright may shift that narrative.
- Spark constitutional or Charter challenges: There may be court challenges based on equality rights or due process guarantees.
Civil society groups, immigrant advocacy organizations, legal scholars, and opposition parties are likely to mobilize strong pushback if the proposal proceeds.
Public Opinion & Divisions
Public support for immigration moderation is nontrivial, especially in cities under stress from population growth and housing scarcity. Some polls suggest a segment of Canadians backs tighter controls.
But at the same time, a significant share of Canadians see birthright citizenship as a foundational principle of inclusion and national identity. Younger Canadians, multicultural communities, human rights groups — these sectors may strongly oppose changes.
The discourse could break along urban vs rural, new immigrant vs established communities, and generational lines.
Real-World Incidents Fueling the Debate
To bolster its argument, the Conservative campaign cites instances involving individuals who entered Canada as temporary residents and later got into serious trouble.
One cited case: Abjeet Kingra, who targeted the residence of Punjabi entertainer AP Dhillon in September of last year, had arrived on a study permit. He was recently sentenced to six years in prison.
Another: a trucker named Navjeet Singh, who came to Canada as an international student, was arrested after a fatal accident in Manitoba in November 2024. After fleeing to India, he was later taken into custody on returning to Canada.
These examples are used to stoke fears that some temporary entrants may abuse the system. Critics, however, warn of the danger in generalizing from rare cases to broad policy affecting millions.
What Happens Next?
Immigration Levels Plan
This campaign is happening just as the Canadian government prepares to present its levels plan for immigration this fall — decisions about how many permanent residents and immigrants Canada will admit. The timing is tactical.
If Conservatives gain influence or electoral power, this birthright amendment could be tied into broader immigration caps or restrictions.
Legislative & Electoral Path
For meaningful change, the Conservatives would likely need to win a majority and then introduce amendments to the Citizenship Act.
Even then, new rules often come with transition periods, exemptions, or grandfather clauses to protect existing cases. How sweeping or narrow the reform becomes will depend greatly on political bargaining and public pressure.
Monitoring Public and Legal Pressure
As the debate intensifies, look for:
- Town halls and community forums in immigrant-dense cities (Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, etc.)
- Civil society campaigns advocating for rights of children and immigrants
- Legal challenges or academic critiques exploring constitutional conflicts
- Media stories highlighting families affected by hypothetical changes
- Polling shifts showing how Canadians’ views on citizenship evolve
Implications & Broader Reflections
1. Redefining Canadian Identity?
Altering birthright citizenship is more than a technical fix — it strikes at national identity. What does it mean to be Canadian? Is it where you’re born, where your roots lie, or the legal status of your family?
By conditioning citizenship, the state draws stronger boundaries between “insiders” and “outsiders.” For children born and raised in Canada, denying automatic citizenship could feel like exclusion, especially if their families have made their lives in Canada.
2. The Message to the World & to Immigrants
Canada has long used its inclusive policies as a soft power asset: a beacon for talent, migrants, students. Rolling back birthright may send messages — intended or not — that Canada is becoming less welcoming, more transactional. That might deter some potential immigrants or students considering Canada as a long-term destination.
3. Administrative, Social & Economic Costs
- Implementation complexity: New verification systems, additional bureaucracy, appeals processes, legal challenges.
- Inequalities across provinces: Different provincial systems, health care, schools, social assistance — children without clear citizenship may suffer gaps in access.
- Economic signals: If families feel Canada isn’t open or secure, some may relocate to more welcoming jurisdictions. That could disadvantage Canada’s ability to attract global talent.
- Pressure on existing pathways: More pressure on temporary-to-permanent routes, sponsorship programs, refugee and skilled immigration pathways to absorb those who would have relied on birthright.
4. The U.S. & Americas As Contrast
Canada is one of the few countries in the Americas that continues broad birthright citizenship, like the U.S. The proposal would, in some ways, align Canada with the many nations that limit citizenship by birth. But critics argue that in North America and Latin America, birthright has been central to inclusive immigration traditions. The shift is symbolic.
Final Thoughts
Canada’s debate over birthright citizenship is not just a debate about legal mechanics. It is a debate about who belongs, how the state treats children, and the balance between openness and control.
The Conservative Party’s campaign to restrict automatic citizenship for children of non-permanent residents is bold — touching on identity, immigration, fairness, and the very foundation of what it means to be Canadian. But it also carries risks: backlash, legal challenges, social division, and unintended harms to children born in Canada.
Whether this change ever becomes law is uncertain. But the conversation itself matters: it reveals fault lines in Canada’s self-image and how pressure points in housing, public services, and migration shape national identity. As this plays out in Parliament, the media, and communities across the country, Canadians will have to ponder: is birthright citizenship a guarantee of inclusion — or a privilege to be judged?
