If you are not from Canada, or if you are from Canada, and you know fuck all about Canadian immigration policy, could you all just STFU??
First, Canada's constitution is not "modelled on" the United States constitution ... to any greater extent than the US constitution is modelled on many things that came before it, in any event.
Our constitution is in many ways very different from the US constitution. EQUALITY RIGHTS, a hugely important element of Canada's constitutional law and history, are one major example.
Before I forget, I want to query the source of the "birthright" map:
http://www.cis.org/-- an odd sort of place, highly recommended by many Republican politicians.
Canadian citizenship law provides that anyone born in Canada (other than children of people with special status such as diplomats) has Canadian citizenship.
What does this statement:
Canada has its own ways of blocking people, as they now have a 'public burden' test for entry, even if one of your parents are Canadian citizens.have to do with Canadian citizenship laws??
Babies born in a country do not "enter" it, and cannot have a "test" applied to them before they are allowed to arrive.
Nationals of other countries whose parent becomes a Canadian citizen through the immigration and citizenship process, but who are not included in the parent's application (presumably because they are adults), must apply for immmigration.
All applicants for immigration are subject to a number of statutory and regulatory requirements, and maybe inadmissible for various reasons: criminality, security, health, and the one you seem to be talking about:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2001-c-27/latest/sc-2001-c-27.html39. A foreign national is inadmissible for financial reasons if they are or will be unable or unwilling to support themself or any other person who is dependent on them, and have not satisfied an officer that adequate arrangements for care and support, other than those that involve social assistance, have been made.
Note the words FOREIGN NATIONAL. This has NOTHING TO DO with citizenship by virtue of birth.
For instance, if you got a job in Canada, and then applied for your spouse to join you, she/he has to have an official government health exam. Lets say your spouse has lupus, or hepatitis C. They will be denied, due to the claim that they will be an undue burden on the Canadian people via health care expense.Have you practised immigration law in Canada?
I have.
That's one possible outcome. And it could very well be reversed on appeal. On appeal, humanitarian and compassionate grounds may be argued and succeed. Those grounds can also be argued initially, and the statutory bar can be overcome by issuing a permit.
Are you suggesting that there are loads of countries on earth where people may bring family members legally and easily as immigrants notwithstanding the fact that the family member has a serious communicable disease or condition requiring intensive use of medical resources?
(Let's remember that Canada has a universal single public payer health care system, and that people admitted as immigrants are as entitled to full coverage by that system as anyone born here.)
I will ask once again.
Please leave Canada and all of the multitudinous misrepresentations of Canadian immigration policy OUT of your debates about US immigration policy.
The two countries' situations are comparable in some respects and not comparable in others, but tossing a few Canadian oranges into the US apple barrel and calling the Canadian oranges rotten apples instead just isn't neighbourly.