[deleted]
-
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. I’m looking at all these “no” responses and they ring so much of the MAGAt’s yelling about “anchor babies”.
-
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.
-
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.
-
[deleted]
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
[deleted]
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.
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
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?
-
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?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
[deleted]
No. Because I don't think citizenship is solely about what plot of land you are born on.
-
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.
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]In those few, extremely rare cases are enough to fuck up a nation's politics, immigration isn't the problem.
They're rare, but not impossible, esspecially when it comes to the involvement of powerful/rich governments, corporations or individuals. We already have enough of that, no reason to make it easier for effectively no gain.
Edit: esspecially considering that ability to chose the location your child is born in is based primarily off wealth rather than moral character or anything else positive.
