[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.
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.
-
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,
And the answer to climate change is to stop using carbon sources.
And the answer to wealth inequality is to tax the rich.
Lots of hard problems have simple answers. They're easy, and impossible to implement.
-
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.
It would be abused and ultimately break the country
Exactly. But that can happen when citizens have children too. We can't be too careful when we're talking about protecting our ideal society.
Everyone, even children of citizens, should have to apply for citizenship and be granted it. Otherwise they get deported.
-
Wouldn't the correct answer in that case just be to make it easier to immigrate and gain citizenship,
And the answer to climate change is to stop using carbon sources.
And the answer to wealth inequality is to tax the rich.
Lots of hard problems have simple answers. They're easy, and impossible to implement.
So we give up with a half-measure, that helps the rich moreso than the poor without addressing the underlying issue?
This isn't a helpful or sustainable approach. Should we give up on climate change because reducing carbon output is hard, or say, "Well, as long as you don't use coal, its good enough." Of course not. Not to mention that making immigration and/or citizenship more accessible isn't an impossible task at all, esspecially relative to climate change or weath inequality.
-
No. Because I don't think citizenship is solely about what plot of land you are born on.
The world's a fucked up place, and birthright citizenship probably isn't the best way to go about things (neither are borders in general but that's a tangent), but I don't think removing rights before a better implementation is in place is the best way to go about things. More people get hurt this way, obviously, and we lose sight of what the actual point of this was. Not to mention it's easy for fascism to take root when you can more easily say who gets to be a citizen.
-
The world's a fucked up place, and birthright citizenship probably isn't the best way to go about things (neither are borders in general but that's a tangent), but I don't think removing rights before a better implementation is in place is the best way to go about things. More people get hurt this way, obviously, and we lose sight of what the actual point of this was. Not to mention it's easy for fascism to take root when you can more easily say who gets to be a citizen.
Removing? We never had birthright citizenship.
-
Removing? We never had birthright citizenship.
We're clearly not from the same countries, but I think this discussion stems from the recent political actions in the USA. In that instance, yes birthright citizenship is the most common method of citizenship and would have severe consequences by changing the law arbitrarily.
-
We're clearly not from the same countries, but I think this discussion stems from the recent political actions in the USA. In that instance, yes birthright citizenship is the most common method of citizenship and would have severe consequences by changing the law arbitrarily.
The US was never specified here so I didn't know it was the expected topic
-
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.
Making immigration more difficult already benefits the wealthy. Not having birthright citizenship won't change that.
Citizens are already being born without any questions about their character. And voting. And changing politics. Because foreign influence doesn't come from some kind of sleeper agent citizen who was bred to take down governments, it comes through social media, embargos, lobbying and data harvesting—which is way easier than some kind of Bourne Identity plot.
But it's become clear you're arguing in case of a specific worst case scenario that I don't believe is any more likely when jus soli comes with few or no conditions.
Unkess you have specific data to support jus soli's direct responsibility for the modern day manipulation by foreign influence, I don't want to continue this conversation.
Have a good one.
