I've been reading a lot about the birth tourism issue in Canada lately, but this issue applies to any country with birthright citizenship.
From a New York Times article describing the issue:
Under the principle of jus soli — the right of the soil — being born in Canada confers automatic citizenship. But as more pregnant women arrive each month to give birth, some Canadians are protesting that they are gaming the system, testing the limits of tolerance and debasing the notion of citizenship.
“Birth tourism may be legal, but it is unethical and unscrupulous,” said Joe Peschisolido, a Liberal member of Parliament in Richmond, who brought a petition against the practice to Ottawa, where the immigration minister, Ahmed Hussen, said he would examine the issue.
Everything I read about it is either neutral or condemning the issue. This bothers me, as it appears as if everyone is against and yet there's no legislative attempts to combat it.
Is there another side to this issue that isn't commonly discussed?
The only possibility I see is that it allows wealthy families to establish themselves which could bring more money into the host country. The issue I see with that is that traveling to Canada from China is not that expensive as to be a reliable signal for wealth.
There is this question which discusses why it's possible in the first place. I'm looking for explanation about why countries have decided that it is something that they want to preserve.