Should This Be Stopped? Foreign Mothers Give Birth to Children in Canada to Secure Citizenship

DSC00275_1Canada, the true north strong and free, is the envy of the world and one of its most valuable assets is its citizenship. Before the Harper government left office they made sweeping changes to Canada’s Immigration Act, making it more difficult to qualify for citizenship. Meeting great opposition however, the Conservative government did not tackle  the phenomenon of “birth tourism”, a subject that remains  highly controversial, particularly in Vancouver.

Those who favour birth tourism argue that innocent children, born in Canada to a foreign mother, should not be deprived of the benefits and advantages of  birth citizenship, saying that to ban birth citizenship is a racist response to what is a miniscule practice in Canada.

Kerry Starchuk of Richmond BC, a suburb of Vancouver, is an advocate for a ban on birth tourism. She has organized a petition to raise the issue in the House of Commons this fall. Backed by Conservative Member of Parliament Alice Wong, the petition was posted on-line in mid-June 2016 and quickly acquired more than double the 500 required signatures to be referred to the House of Commons.

The petition favours the elimination of birthright citizenship in Canada unless one of the parents of the child born in Canada is a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada.

Ms. Starchuk’s chief complaint is that her home for 28 years is now bordered by a “maternity motel” for pregnant women from China, one of several such homes in Richmond. Local Chinese newspapers and websites in Vancouver and Asia display advertisements soliciting Mandarin-speaking mothers, and promote the advantages of delivering a baby in Canada, suggesting that having a Canadian child will assist them to obtain citizenship as well.

Services offered include airport shuttles, language translation services, provision of obstetricians, and assistance with birth certificates, child tax benefits, medical coverage,  social insurance numbers, and passport and visa applications. These maternity motels boast of healthy  food prepared by professional chefs and describe  views of the snow-capped north shore mountains from their  facility.

China and Hong Kong are well-versed in the potential exploitation of birth tourism, a phenomenon they struggled with when mainland Chinese mothers travelled to Hong Kong to give birth in order to obtain better health care, Hong Kong residency, and the freedom to dodge China’s one-child policy. Until Hong Kong  passed laws banning birth tourism in 2013, statistics indicate that up to half of all children born in Hong Kong had parents who lived elsewhere.

Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland presents the argument that this isn’t really a  Canadian problem, citing the huge number of foreign workers and long-term visitors to Canada of over a million people per year, compared to 232 births attributed to birth tourism.

I predict that Ms. Starchuk’s petition will languish just like similar proposals to rid Canada of birth tourism.

Interestingly, Canada and the United States are the only G7 countries that permit babies born on their soil to obtain citizenship.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Missouri Politicians Vote in Favour of Equal Parenting

GeorgiaLeeLang025The State of Missouri can truly boast of their “enlightened” political representation as state legislators took a bold step this week and passed legislation to engrain the concept of shared parenting into their family laws. The next step is for Governor Jay Nixon to sign the bill into law.

You may ask: Is this another one of those “watered-down” efforts we have seen before, where the change does not remedy the age-old “dad can’t be an equal participant in parenting” philosophy?  Not at all.

The changes contemplated in the new law are exciting for Missouri fathers who have for too long been marginalized by antiquated twentieth century traditions of stay-at-home moms and working dads, operating to advance a maternal preference for parenting after separation. The old way of parenting was shored up by untested psychological theories about mothers and fathers that unwittingly led to a template of a “visiting” parent, usually relegated to every second weekend for a total of four nights of access per month.

The primary caregiver model became the default position without consideration of the quality of parenting, the psychological functioning of each parent, or the history and nature of the parent/child relationship.

Good parents were lumped together with dysfunctional parents because judges relied on precedent, a straightjacket that we now know has hurt generations of children and needlessly disempowered parents, usually fathers.

The proposed Missouri law challenges those outdated assumptions by injecting language that directly addresses the inequality that has reigned for decades in North America.

For example, the definition of joint custody will read:

” Joint physical custody means an order awarding each of the parents approximate and reasonably equal periods of time during which a child resides with or is under the care and supervision of each of the parents. Joint physical custody shall be shared by the parents in such a way as to assure the child of substantial, frequent, continuing, and meaningful contact with both parents;”

The bill also includes the following passage:

” In determining the allocation of periods of physical custody, the court shall presume that a parenting plan that equalizes to the highest degree the amount of time the child may spend with each parent is in the best interest of the child. The state courts administrator shall modify the Form 68-A Parenting Plan, also known as “Schedule J”, to reflect the provisions of this subdivision and to include that the default parenting plan shall include alternating weeks with each parent, unless the parents submit an alternative parenting plan.”

It is encouraging to see politicians embrace the most up-to-date research which overwhelmingly supports parents as equal partners in parenting after separation. Hopefully, other jurisdictions will wake up and recognize that conflict during divorce should not be used to eliminate what hundreds of social scientists say is the best outcome for children. Shared parenting. It’s good for kids and parents.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Victims of Family Justice System Mount Legal Challenge on Parents’ Day

BarristerAn American group who call themselves “Constitutional Association of Parental Rights Activists” (CAPRA) intend to take steps this summer to publicize and take action regarding the plight of parents who have been denied a full parental role in their children’s upbringing. The basic principles underlying their campaign stem from the United States Federal Code (36 US Code 135) that provides for Parents’ Day. The law reads:

“(a) The fourth Sunday in July is Parents’ Day.
 (b) All private citizens, organizations, and Federal, State, and local governmental and legislative entities are encouraged to recognize Parents’ Day through proclamations, activities, and educational efforts in furtherance of recognizing, uplifting, and supporting the role of parents in bringing up their children.”
Planning is well underway to launch a class action lawsuit against all 50 states of the union on Parents’ Day 2016.  Their strategy is to leverage this official federal holiday as a starting point and take advantage of both the Republican and Democratic Presidential Conventions to bring pressure on both political parties to recognize the importance of both parents in raising children. The GOP convention is one week before Parents’ Day, while the Democrats will meet a week after the holiday.
Their primary goal is to shutdown and radically reform America’s family court system

 

Commencing July 4th, 2016, some 50,000 CAPRA Members will begin exploiting a variety of media forums to spread the word.  They reason that based on the language of the Parents’ Day law every candidate must support the official Parents Day law, and therefore, must support their class action suit. For more information go to parentalrightsclassaction.com.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

 

T’was The Night Before Christmas: Legal Version

GeorgiaLeeLang025Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a
certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter “the House”) a general
lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to a
mouse.

A variety of foot apparel, e.g. stocking, socks, etc., had been affixed by
and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick
a/k/a/ St. Nicholas a/k/a/ Santa Claus (hereinafter “Claus”) would arrive at House
sometime thereafter.

The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House were
located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal
hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein visions of confectionery treats,
including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums, did dance,
cavort and otherwise appear in said dreams.

Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to as
“I”), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with the party of the
second part (hereinafter “Mamma”), and said Mamma had retired for a
sustained period of sleep. (At such time, the parties were clad in various
forms of headgear, e.g. kerchief and cap.)

Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the
unimproved real property adjacent and appurtenant to said House, i.e. the
lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause and/or circumstance. The
party of the first part did immediately rush to a window in the House to
investigate the cause of such disturbance.

At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of
wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter “the Vehicle”)
being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by approximately
eight (8) reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be and in fact
was, the previously referenced Claus.

Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and guidance to the
approximately eight (8) reindeer and specifically indentified the animal
co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid,
Donner and Blitzen (hereinafter “the Deer”). (Upon information and belief,
it is further asserted an additional co-conspirator named “Rudolph” may have
been involved.)

The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the Deer
intentionally and willfully trespass upon the roofs of several residences
located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the
Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys and other items of unknown
origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either
express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered said
House via the chimney.

Said Claus was clad in a red fur suit, which was partially covered with
residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion
of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was
smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant violation of
local ordinances and health regulations.

Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the stocking of the minor
children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other small
gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute “gifts” to said minor
pursuant to the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code.)

Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew,
rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the
Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as “lookouts.” Claus immediately
departed for an unknown destination.

However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer and Claus from said
House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim:

“Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!” Or words to that effect.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU!

Merry Christmas Disclaimer

GeorgiaLeeLang009

 

PLEASE ACCEPT without obligation, express or implied, these best wishes for an

environmentally safe, socially responsible, low stress, non addictive, and gender

neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday as practiced within the most

enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice (but with respect

for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others or for their

choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all):

AND FURTHER for a fiscally successful, personal fulfilling, and

medically uncomplicated onset of the generally accepted calendar year

(including, but not limited to, the Christian calendar, but not

without due respect for the calendars of choice or of other cultures).

THE PROCEEDING wishes are extended without regard to the race, creed,

colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform, or

sexual preference of the wishee.

 

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Fifty-Year-Old Woman Can Refuse Life-Saving Treatment Where She Has Lost Her Youth and Beauty

GeorgiaLeeLang032Assisted suicide is a complex social issue, one that many people struggle with. I have come to the conclusion that if a person has a fatal or incurable condition with no quality of life or unmanageable pain, it is simply humane to engage a physician to assist in a peaceful passing. However, I am still concerned there will be inappropriate, even frivolous medical conditions that will pass scrutiny as doctors and the public become comfortable with new laws legalizing assisted suicide.

A related issue is whether an otherwise healthy adult with a medical condition that can be treated, should be permitted to refuse treatment where the result will be death.
A case in England last month comes to mind where a 50-year-old woman who said she “lost her sparkle”, meaning her youth and beauty, was the subject of a court application to determine whether she would be permitted to refuse lifesaving treatment following a suicide attempt.

The woman was first diagnosed with breast cancer and refused any treatment that would “affect her wearing a bikini” or “make her fat”. A year later she went through a high-
conflict relationship breakdown, lost her business and home, and incurred significant debt. She tried to commit suicide by taking an overdose of an over-the-counter analgesic called paracetamol, not unlike aspirin, quaffing them with liberal amounts of champagne. The suicide attempt failed leaving her with a serious kidney condition that could be reversed with dialysis. She refused the treatment.

Her doctors contacted the Health Authority who applied to the Court for an order that she be treated, despite her refusal to consent. Justice MacDonald described her as a woman to whom youth and beauty was most important, she was unconventional in her lifestyle: married four times, had several affairs, and drank excessive amounts of alcohol. In short, she was a “party girl”.

Her daughter told the court, “Put bluntly, her life has always revolved around her looks, men, and material possessions. She understands that people have failed relationships,
feel sad, and continue living, but for her, she doesn’t want to ‘live in a council flat’, ‘be poor’ or ‘be ugly’, which she equates with being old.”

The judge considered whether the woman was competent to make an informed choice, ruled that she was, and refused the Health Authority’s application to force her to undergo treatment. Mr. Justice MacDonald added that his ruling did not prevent the woman’s doctors from “continuing to seek to engage with her in an effort to persuade her of the benefits of receiving life-saving treatment”.

She died fifteen days after the Court permitted her to refuse the life-saving dialysis, leaving behind three children including one who was still a dependent, all because in her dysfunctional mind she felt old, a state she equated with ugliness. Very sad.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Is US Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling a Threat to Democracy?

BarristerToday’s gay marriage decision from the United States Supreme Court has the potential to create an even greater divide between America’s already polarized electorate.

In a 5/4 decision, the Court invented a new civil right under the banner of equal protection and due process of the law pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment, by ruling that individual States cannot ban same-sex marriage.

The decision is neither unexpected nor surprising, however the chasm between the slim majority and the minority opinions is startling.

Mr. Justice Scalia characterizes the decision as a threat to American democracy and decries a system of government that makes the people subordinate to a committee of nine unelected patrician lawyers, who are strikingly unrepresentative of the people they serve. He notes the Court’s judges all have law degrees from Yale or Harvard, four of the nine are from New York, eight grew up in either east or west coast states, with only one judge from the large expanse between the two coasts, and not a single south-westerner.

He continues his provocative opinion by musing that the majority’s discovery of a new fundamental right in the Fourteenth Amendment has curiously been overlooked by some of the brightest legal minds in America, referring to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and other brilliant jurists of the past.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in a separate dissent, writes that the majority has not just ignored America’s entire history and traditions but actively repudiates it. He laments that the Court’s imposition of its “reasoned judgment”, devoid of legal principles, or as Justice Scalia observes “lacking even a thin veneer of law”, is actually a lost opportunity for the gay and lesbian community who can no longer obtain true acceptance from their neighbours, “just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs”. Here the Chief Justice is acknowledging that only thirteen states now ban same-sex marriage.

Chief Justice Roberts rejects the majority’s view that Americans who did nothing more than uphold their understanding of marriage as between a man and a woman should be criticized for their alleged disparagement and disrespect of gays and lesbians. He describes the Court’s denouncement of citizens who uphold a Biblical view of marriage as a gratuitous assault on their character:

“It is one thing for the majority to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share the majority’s “better informed understanding” as bigoted.”

Mr. Justice Alito pursues a similar theme writing that the new law will be used to vilify those unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy, noting that the majority compares traditional marriage laws to laws that denied equal treatment to African-Americans and women, an analogy that he fears will be exploited by those who wish to stamp out any vestige of dissent.

Justice Alito predicts the majority’s imposition of its views on America facilitates the marginalization of traditional Americans who may fall victim to the harsh treatment once afforded gays and lesbians. He says:

“…some may think that turn-about is fair play. But if that sentiment prevails, the Nation will experience bitter and lasting wounds.”

Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas sees the majority decision as a threat to religious liberty, as does the Chief Justice who remarks that the “good and decent people who oppose same-sex marriage as a tenet of faith and their freedom to exercise religion is, unlike the right imagined by the majority, actually spelled out in the Constitution.”

Justice Clarence states that the decision on same-sex marriage should have been left to the political process, as the Constitution requires, and had that happened the religious implications would have been considered. He identifies the potential of a ruinous assault on religious freedom.

The chasm between members of the Court is no more apparent than in Justice Scalia’s mockery of the majority’s finding that the marriage bond creates “other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality”, to which he replies “Really? Whoever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms?…The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.”

While there is much to celebrate in the gay and lesbian community, there is a silent majority who are disappointed, even angry, that their rights under the democratic process have been trampled by five elite lawyers.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang