The frigid winds of Canadian winters have long sent thousands of retirees flocking south to the sun-drenched beaches and desert landscapes of the United States. Now, these seasonal migrants—affectionately known as “snowbirds”—may soon have reason to celebrate as a proposed legislative change could dramatically extend their permitted stay in American territory.
A bipartisan bill introduced in the U.S. Congress aims to create a new “Canadian Retiree Visa” that would allow eligible Canadians aged 50 and older to remain in the United States for up to eight consecutive months per year—a significant increase from the current six-month limit that has defined snowbird migration patterns for decades.
“This legislation recognizes the deep economic and cultural ties between our nations,” said Representative María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), who co-sponsored the bill alongside Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). “Canadian visitors contribute billions to our economy, particularly in states like Florida, Arizona, and California.”
The timing of this proposal has raised eyebrows among political analysts, who note its emergence during an election year when former President Donald Trump—who has signaled support for the measure—is seeking to return to office. While the Trump administration previously maintained strict border policies, this apparent shift suggests a strategic recalibration toward Canadian visitors who bring substantial economic benefits without the political complications associated with other immigration issues.
Economic data supports the significance of this potential change. According to the Canadian Snowbird Association, the approximately 1.1 million Canadians who spend winter months in the U.S. inject over $6.5 billion annually into the American economy. Florida alone receives nearly 500,000 Canadian visitors during winter months, who contribute an estimated $2.5 billion to the state’s economy.
“Many of our members maintain second homes in the United States and pay property taxes year-round, despite only being permitted to stay for half the year,” explained Karen Huestis, president of the Canadian Snowbird Association. “This extension would allow them to maximize their investment while continuing to contribute to local economies.”
The proposed visa would come with strict eligibility requirements. Applicants must be Canadian citizens aged 50 or older who own or rent residential property in the U.S. or have confirmed accommodations for their extended stay. They must also maintain health insurance coverage valid in the United States—a crucial provision given that Canadian provincial health plans provide limited coverage abroad.
However, financial analysts caution that tax implications could become complicated for extended-stay visitors. Under current rules, Canadians who spend more than 182 days in the U.S. over a three-year period (using the IRS’s Substantial Presence Test calculation) may be considered U.S. residents for tax purposes, potentially subjecting their worldwide income to American taxation.
“The bill doesn’t address these tax concerns,” noted David Altro, a cross-border tax attorney. “Snowbirds will need to carefully track their days and potentially file additional paperwork to maintain their non-resident status for tax purposes.”
The legislation also faces uncertainty in Washington’s polarized political environment. While the bill has bipartisan sponsorship, immigration remains a contentious topic, and congressional prioritization of the measure remains unclear. The proposal must navigate committee review, floor votes in both chambers, and ultimately secure presidential approval—a process that could extend well beyond the upcoming election.
For 72-year-old Torontonian Margaret Wilson, who has wintered in Naples, Florida for over a decade, the prospect of extended stays represents more than just additional beach time. “Two more months would mean attending my grandchildren’s spring activities when they visit during their school breaks. It’s about family connections, not just escaping the cold.”
Canadian officials have remained neutral on the proposal, acknowledging it as a sovereign U.S. decision while emphasizing the importance of citizens understanding potential implications for their healthcare coverage and tax obligations.
