[deleted]
-
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.
-
[deleted]
No. What's the advantage for me as a citizen?
-
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?
-
Why should descent be required?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]"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...
-
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 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.
-
[deleted]
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. What's the advantage for me as a citizen?
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.
-
[deleted]
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Fully agree. I would add that a child should be able to opt out in case their 'other country' does not allow multiple citizenships.
-
[deleted]
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.
-
[deleted]
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.
-
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
-
That's just racism
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Wanting to help people is racism, noted. Good to know.
-
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.
Wow. Iām looking at all these ānoā responses and they ring so much of the MAGAtās yelling about āanchor babiesā.
-
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.
-
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.
-
[deleted]
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.
