For Reference:
Light blue countries have restrictions (such as permanent residency) so I wanna hear your opinions as well.
No. Because I don’t think citizenship is solely about what plot of land you are born on.
I theoretically, I would say I’m generally against it, with the understanding the citizenship is not the same as permission to live/work in the country nor the same as permission to access services.
Citizenship should generally mean that the country is your “home country” rather than place of origin. In that case, citizenship should be given to those who want to commit to participating in and improving the government and culture of the country (if only because thats where they spend most time). Where you were born doesn’t relate to this strongly. What matters is how much time you’ll spend here in the future, such as if your parents are citizens or permanent residents (meaning you’ll likely grow up here) or if you want to move to the country permanently.
Basically, where you’re born shouldn’t matter. What should is your intent on living in the society you’ve gained influence in.
Lotta people in here have never had to immigrate. If the first thing you think of when you hear “immigration” is brown people trying to trick their way into a country, you might be a terrible fucking person.
Jus soli should always be an option because the harder it is to get citizenship, the harder that family’s life is going to be, regardless of circumstances. No single person should have to suffer just because of where they or their parents were born when there are other options.
Wouldn’t the correct answer in that case just be to make it easier to immigrate and gain citizenship, rather than expecting you to be born there?
The question wasn’t about expecting people to be born in the country they wish to live, it was about whether citizenship by jus soli should be an option without conditions.
As a whole, yes, I believe immigration should be easier. Citizenship by birth should be one of the routes available.
The question wasn’t about expecting people to be born in the country they wish to live, it was about whether citizenship by jus soli should be an option without conditions.
But why should it be an option if you don’t and/or don’t intend to live there?
Because it should always be an option? An option is optional, which means you don’t have to use it.
I don’t see why voting or having political influence in a country you have no commitment to is a good thing. It seems to me that it just makes it easier to abuse the systems in place without having to live with the consequences.
That’s assuming foreign parents who had no intention of staying in a country decided to take the option of granting their child citizenship to that country for no reason. Then, that child lives somewhere that allows dual citizenship. And then, that child, once grown up in a foreign country, who has no commitment or interest in the nation of their birth, goes out of their way to vote and exert political influence on the country to which they have no commitment.
In those few, extremely rare cases are enough to fuck up a nation’s politics, immigration isn’t the problem.
Surprised at the amount of commenters here fine with making kids’ lives worse because they’re afraid of brown people.
Two weeks ago I learned about someone losing her child’s custody because the kid doesn’t have citizenship, and her PR doesn’t extend to the kid, so the dad had to get full custody or the kid had to fly back (by themselves apparently). This is the kind of shit jus soli helps with.
If your nationality is tied to your blood rather than your identity, you have an ethnostate, not a nation.
I mean, in most of the cases on the map it’s actually brown people afraid of other brown people. America invented racism, or at least the main kind of racism, but being a bigot in other ways is ancient and ubiquitous.
Wow. I’m looking at all these “no” responses and they ring so much of the MAGAt’s yelling about “anchor babies”.
Nationality should be about building a community, so nationality should be given if the parents have an effective connection to the country. For this reason I think the best solution is combining nationality “by blood” (i.e. if one of the parents is a national), restricted “jus soli” (i.e. children of permanent residents get the nationality too), and, as an exception, I believe children that would otherwise be stateless should get nationality on birth to fix the glaring human rights issue.
As for children naturalisation, I believe any child that does most of mandatory schooling in a country should automatically get nationality.
This being said, I also believe that very few rights and duties should be restricted to nationals. People shouldn’t have to live in fear of having their entire life upturned or not have access to services and social support just because they have the wrong passport.
People shouldn’t have to live in fear of having their entire life upturned or not have access to services and social support just because they have the wrong passport.
Very important aspect! Thank you for mentioning this.
Fully agree. I would add that a child should be able to opt out in case their ‘other country’ does not allow multiple citizenships.
You should know that the Americas case is an exception because colonialism. It’s not even a “good” thing. It’s just a residue of the excuse settlers used to take natives lands without their consent.
No. Citizenship for a child in my country is tied to a huge amount of rights and access to welfare that essentially extends across a lifetime. Birthright citizenship would inevitably lead to an increase in (already significant) abuse of our strained welfare system.
Right now what’s needed is rapid reform in order to salvage as much of it as possible. We can’t afford to rapidly expand the system to include more people.
Tax the rich instead.
They already are. Marginal tax rate on income is ~66% and tax pressure as a whole is close to 50% of GDP. Hence increasing taxes isn’t really feasible.
No. People will use children as tools to migrate. They already do to an extent, but this would exacerbate it significantly. People should have children because they want to raise a family, not to use them as a tool to bypass inconvenient red tape.
No. It would be abused and ultimately break the country so it’s no longer good for anyone.
In order to still be a country where people can seek for a better future the first objective should be maintain the country prosper, and that would need some restrictions.
If you just look for the short term you would be advocating everyone for a terrible future. Even if you are well intended and think that allowing a limitless number of people to stablish seeking for a better life (which is what would happen), ultimately the system will be unable to hold and we all will fall together.
We must be smarter and think of a system that can keep improving people’s life for the foreseeable future.
That’s just racism
Wanting to help people is racism, noted. Good to know.
You don’t want to help people. You want to exclude people from the help.
👍
And to add to it. Fun fact, literally all studies of economic impacts of immigrants show they are a boost to the nation they move to and not a burden. You treat it as a given that a person not currently in their nation of origin puts stress on that system beyond what they added to it.
That is fantasy driven by very racist presumptions supported by no facts, only feelings.
No. In our country, the majority bellieves that descent should be the first criterion that decides citizenship, and I belong to that majority. During recent years, it has been made much easier for foreigners to acquire citizenship, so that’s somewhat balanced now.
Why should descent be required?
A “nation” is a community, and without conducting a full investigation into every individual birth, the two main indicators that a child will likely have strong ties to a national community are:
- the parents already belong to that national community
- the parents reside permanently in the country. Almost all countries in the mid shade of blue use this criteria for restricted birthright.
A nation isn’t a community, at least not in any real, human sense. We barely even know many of our neighbors, let alone those across the country.
The fact that it’s common doesn’t make it right. All of these policies were adopted following the rise of race science, fascism, nationalism, etc. It’s surprising people haven’t started to push back on them more yet.
“Required”? That’s looking at it from a funny angle. Descent is not usually lacking. Don’t you have parents?
Descent simply decides which citizenship you have, at first. That’s all. But if you feel you “require” a different descent, then I don’t know… :)
Well, you’re denying people certain basic freedoms based on who their parents were. Not all countries provide citizenship based on ancestry, and this means that denying birthright citizenship can lead to statelessness, which is very dangerous for those people. So for them, it is a requirement for a basic and normal life free from state violence.
Nobody does any denying. Things are just as they have been since … ancient times.
can lead to statelessness
Purely theoretical, since the other countries around have it the same way. Zero such cases per year.
No. What’s the advantage for me as a citizen?
Does every single thing need to provide an advantage to you, for you to support it?
I see a clear disadvantage, but I’m willing to listen to the arguments for the other side before I make up my mind.
I’m not making an argument for or against it, just seemed really self-centred bestie. You could say the same thing about asylum seekers, though the obvious advantage is the cultural diversity they bring and, you know, being a decent human being.
We should definitely accept refugees. They have an urgent need of safety. If they get a job and pay taxes I don’t see an issue with giving them permanent residency either. A permanent resident does not have the same urgent need of becoming a citizen.
Why is cultural diversity an advantage? It’s mentioned in the political debate by both sides as either essential or with disdain. I don’t understand why either side would be correct in this case.
Seeking a better life for one’s children tends to be a powerful motivator for people. The promise of a better life has driven a lot of people to get on a boat and sail to the United States over the last few hundred years. As a natural born citizen, I benefit from them all, from the cleverest inventor to the humblest fruit picker. We got folks in power right now trying to abolish it, and look how it’s going for us.
You sound, to me, like a Republican.
I don’t live in the US, I only care for your foregin policy. I’m all for immigration for anyone who can be bothered to work and pay taxes with the rest of us. In fact if you manage so sneak into the country and pay tax you should be given a temporary residence permit just for the trouble.
If you have been a permanent resident for a long time you should be allowed to become a citizen. If your parents were here for a few years when you were born I’m not convinced it’s a good idea.
