Is Citizenship a Birthright?

[Skylar1]

Do you think that people should be granted citizenship simply because the locality of their birth? After all, no one chooses whom they are or where they're born. What happens if it's not the country they want to live in?

Discuss

[Anoleis]

No, I believe that citizenship should be determined by the citizenship of the child's parents.

It makes things much easier to handle.

[Wio]

Citizenship should always match that of whoever claims guardianship of the baby. People should not use their children as a means to an end.

[Anuket]

It should depend on the parents' citizenship, being somewhere else isn't an excuse for and/or taken advantage as the child's citizenship. Since there are many children being born of mixed ethnics it's just common sense to have the child have the same citizenship as their parents, it makes things a lot less complicated.

[dream magician]

From what I know, there are two basis for citizenship: 1. by the parent's blood, and 2. the place of birth ( it doesn't matter if your parents aren't a citizen of the country one's born in). Then there's naturalization -wherein one adopts the state he/she lives in, making him/her a citizen of that state- or vice versa.

[animeyay]

No, I'm normally pretty liberal, but regarding this issue, I do NOT believe in birthright citizenship. Way too many "anchor babies" and way too many illegal immigrants.

[-GAZKUL-]

I believe that citizenship should be determined by the citizenship of the child's parents.

.

personally i think this concept is the biggest load of crap ever devised, if this was the case then what is there to say what the parent's nationality is? then surely there would be no such thing as an American as anyone born in the US would immediately take their parents nationality, similarly as most Brits are descended from the Normans(French), Vikings, Saxons, Scots (Irish), Angles, Picts etc what would that make us?

And if Homo Sapiens first appeared in the middle east then surely under this retarded system we'd all be Iraqi?

I was born is Scotland even though all my family are English or Welsh, duos that mean that i'm not a Scottish Citizen?

Is citizenship a birthright? Damn right it is!!!!

[Anoleis]

Personally I think this concept is the biggest load of crap ever devised, if this was the case then what is there to say what the parent's nationality is? Then surely there would be no such thing as an American as anyone born in the US would immediately take their parents nationality, similarly as most Brits are descended from the Normans(French), Vikings, Saxons, Scots(Irish), Angles, Picts etc what would that make us?

And if Homo Sapiens first appeared in the middle east then surely under this retarded system we'd all be Iraqi?

I was born is Scotland, even though all my family are English or Welsh, does that mean that I'm not a Scottish Citizen?

Is citizenship a birthright? Damn right it is!

You are implying that citizenship by parentage would be based on ethnicity, rather than the citizenship of the parent; as if ethnicity plays a role in citizenship :rolleyes:

[OtakuInu!!!]

Well, it depends on what kind of citizenship are you basing on. If you want to base on "jus soli" or the place of birth, or "jus sanguinis" or by blood. Plus, isn't there such a thing as dual citizenship?

[Eris]

You are implying that citizenship by parentage would be based on ethnicity, rather than the citizenship of the parent; as if ethnicity plays a role in citizenship :rolleyes:

Ethnicity based citizenship is a logical consequence of what you suggest. As the citizenship of the parent surely should depend on the citizenship of the grand parent, and so on and so forth.


No, I'm normally pretty liberal, but regarding this issue, I do NOT believe in birthright citizenship. Way too many "anchor babies" and way too many illegal immigrants.

The economic thing would be to let those illegal immigrants have citizenship in the first place. If they have to enter by having a child, then they'll essentially cost society money for some 15 years until the child starts putting back to the society again. Merely adding new citizens is a zero sum thing, especially in a country as sparsely populated as the US.

[wolfgirl90]

Do you think that people should be granted citizenship simply because the locality of their birth? After all, no one chooses whom they are or where they're born. What happens if it's not the country they want to live in?

Discuss

Well, just to clarify, whether someone acquires citizenship via blood (jus sanguinis) or from where they were born (jus soli), both cases technically involve acquiring citizenship by bithright (meaning rights associated to the circumstances of one's birth, rather than outside circumstances like naturalization). Because of this, I was a little confused as to what you want to discuss here

And while a child can't control where they were born, they also can't control who their parents are and certainly not where their parents are from, so its kinda a moot point (from that reasoning at least).:closedeye


It should depend on the parents' citizenship, being somewhere else isn't an excuse for and/or taken advantage as the child's citizenship. Since there are many children being born of mixed ethnics it's just common sense to have the child have the same citizenship as their parents, it makes things a lot less complicated.

Er...what? If look at what you posted, you can see how passing citizenship jus sanguinis can be a little complicated. If a child has parents of mixed ethnicity (meaning parents who not from the same country), from which parent do they assume citizenship from? Do the laws from both countries allow the child to assume citizenship from both countries, or does it have to be one or the other (e.g whether they allow dual citizenship or not)? For example, if a child has a US parent and a Japanese parent, the child can maintain dual citizenship in the United States; however, Japanese law stipulates that, before age 22, they need to choose one or the other (Japanese law doesn't allow dual citizenship).

And how does each country practice jus sanguinis? Can both parents pass along citizenship or are there special rules in place? For example, in Sweden, a Swedish mother can pass along citizenship regardless of where the child was born. However, a Swedish father can only do this if the child was born in Sweden or if he was married to the mother (same rules apply if he died before the child was born). If the father wasn't married to the mother and the child was born somewhere else, the child doesn't get Swedish citizenship, regardless of blood.

Jus soli is very simple: if you were born here, you are a citizen. Unless there are stipulations ON TOP of that (e.g requiring that at least one parent be a citizen of that country), knowing which country you have citizenship with is as simple as finding out where you were born.


No, I'm normally pretty liberal, but regarding this issue, I do NOT believe in birthright citizenship. Way too many "anchor babies" and way too many illegal immigrants.

Umm..."anchor baby" is actually a very interesting term because it assumes that if parents immigrate to the US illegally, have a baby here, and thus granting that child US citizenship, that they can't be deported because they a child with US citizenship (effectively using the child as an "anchor").

Sorry, but this isn't true (as many unfortunate people have realized). Illegal immigrant parents do NOT gain ANY benefits whatsoever by having a child that is a US citizen. Simply having a baby here doesn't mean that they can't be deported (the child can stay, since it is their right; the parents have none so they get deported). In fact, there are laws in place that state that the mere presence of children is not a factor in whether or not the parents will be deported (children are only considered in extremely special circumstances). A US citizen can't file for a visa for their parents until they are 21, and even then, if the parents were deported earlier for immigrating to the US illegally, they are barred from nationalization (either for multiple years or for the rest their lives), regardless of their child's citizenship and their willingness to sponsor them.

Just FYI.

[animeyay]

I'm not saying the parents are definitely trying to gain something for themselves by having anchor babies. However, it is rather selfish of them to go to another country illegally just so that their children will have a better chance later in life (or whatever other reasons there may be). Sure sure, a parent's love can't really be judged at times, but what those parents are doing is unfair for the others who work hard their way to enter the US legitimately.

I'm not even talking about the economy or job market here.

[Skylar1]

well, my point of the this thread, as example by the title was to doubt if citizenship should even have anything to do with one's birth in the first place.

My idea? we should all be born a sort of quasi-neutral status, and then at 18 would be required to apply for citizenship. Permits for extension could be offered for those whom choose citizenship not in the country they reside so as to give more time to move to said country of desire.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

I was about to tell animeyay that, but wolf beat me to it. Yeah, I mean, look at the situation Mexicans are at.

Anyways, my view on this? Like some said, citizenship should be the same as the parents' citizenship.

[miniPhil]

I shall endevor to have a son/daughter on the moon. Then they can be king/queen of the stars.

[TheAsterisk!]

Citizenship upon birth is messy, but I've yet to see an alternative proposal that would (1) work in the US, (2) that would not create a greater mess in society and in law, and that (3) was a predominantly ethical prospect.

Keep it as it is, at least for the time being.

[-GAZKUL-]

I notice that it's the right wingers among us (the americans) who don't think it should be a birthright, well my previous point stands and to all the Germans, Brits, South Americans, French, Asians etc who disagree just think about it for a second or two and don't immediately associate the word "immigrant" with the word "Mexican". What's wrong with wanting a better life for your children? surely people shouldn't be denied the benefits of citizenship based on race.

[Anoleis]

What's wrong with wanting a better life for your children? surely people shouldn't be denied the benefits of citizenship based on race.

Nobody is denied citizenship based on race(ethnicity).

[-GAZKUL-]

Nobody is denied citizenship based on race.

race/nationality/citizenship, what's the difference.

[Anoleis]

race/nationality/citizenship, what's the difference.

Questions should end with a question mark.

The word citizenship is often used in a different sense from nationality. The most common distinguishing feature of citizenship is that citizens have the right to participate in the political life of the state, such as by voting or standing for election. The term national can include both citizens and non-citizens.

Alternatively, nationality can refer to membership in a nation (collective of people sharing a national identity, usually based on ethnic and cultural ties and self-determination) even if that nation has no state, such as the Basques, Kurds, Tamils and Scots.

You don't actually mean race; what you mean is ethnicity. All humans are homo sapiens, ergo not of different races. I think it is quite clear how ethnicity differs from citizenship and nationality.

http://www.cssquirrel.com/images/tmyk.jpg


Keep it as it is, at least for the time being.
I like this.

[-GAZKUL-]

point still stands, The fact is that everyone is Iraqi under your system which is irritating cause i kinda like being Scottish

[Anoleis]

point still stands, The fact is that everyone is Iraqi under your system which is irritating cause i kinda like being Scottish
Iraq was not a country till ~1930, when Britain granted it independence. You can't be a citizen of a non-existent country.

[Jmosies]

I guess it makes more sense to me for the child to be a citizen of the country they're born in. The kid didn't choose where they were going to be born...why punish them for what their parents did?

Or when they get to a certain age, maybe you could let them decide if they'd like to have citizenship in their parents' country or where they were born.

[Wio]

Ethnicity based citizenship is a logical consequence of what you suggest. As the citizenship of the parent surely should depend on the citizenship of the grand parent, and so on and so forth.
There is such a thing as legal immigration. It allows you to acquire citizenship in a country of which your parents weren't citizens and then pass onto your child. Not every first generation immigrant is illegal.


The economic thing would be to let those illegal immigrants have citizenship in the first place. If they have to enter by having a child, then they'll essentially cost society money for some 15 years until the child starts putting back to the society again. Merely adding new citizens is a zero sum thing, especially in a country as sparsely populated as the US.
Most illegal immigrants are going to have a child regardless. The most economic thing to do is to simply not accept children into the school unless they are a citizen or their parents are living in the country legally.


Er...what? If look at what you posted, you can see how passing citizenship jus sanguinis can be a little complicated. If a child has parents of mixed ethnicity (meaning parents who not from the same country), from which parent do they assume citizenship from? Do the laws from both countries allow the child to assume citizenship from both countries, or does it have to be one or the other (e.g whether they allow dual citizenship or not)? For example, if a child has a US parent and a Japanese parent, the child can maintain dual citizenship in the United States; however, Japanese law stipulates that, before age 22, they need to choose one or the other (Japanese law doesn't allow dual citizenship).

And how does each country practice jus sanguinis? Can both parents pass along citizenship or are there special rules in place? For example, in Sweden, a Swedish mother can pass along citizenship regardless of where the child was born. However, a Swedish father can only do this if the child was born in Sweden or if he was married to the mother (same rules apply if he died before the child was born). If the father wasn't married to the mother and the child was born somewhere else, the child doesn't get Swedish citizenship, regardless of blood.
None of those details are really significant. Do you really want him to answer those questions? If he did, would certain answers be unacceptable to you?


Jus soli is very simple: if you were born here, you are a citizen. Unless there are stipulations ON TOP of that (e.g requiring that at least one parent be a citizen of that country), knowing which country you have citizenship with is as simple as finding out where you were born.
Actually, it's not simpler. You could add stipulations onto either one. I could just as easily say "If your father or mother is a citizen here, then you are a citizen."



Umm..."anchor baby" is actually a very interesting term because it assumes that if parents immigrate to the US illegally, have a baby here, and thus granting that child US citizenship, that they can't be deported because they a child with US citizenship (effectively using the child as an "anchor").

Sorry, but this isn't true (as many unfortunate people have realized). Illegal immigrant parents do NOT gain ANY benefits whatsoever by having a child that is a US citizen. Simply having a baby here doesn't mean that they can't be deported (the child can stay, since it is their right; the parents have none so they get deported). In fact, there are laws in place that state that the mere presence of children is not a factor in whether or not the parents will be deported (children are only considered in extremely special circumstances). A US citizen can't file for a visa for their parents until they are 21, and even then, if the parents were deported earlier for immigrating to the US illegally, they are barred from nationalization (either for multiple years or for the rest their lives), regardless of their child's citizenship and their willingness to sponsor them.

Just FYI.
The benefits are not all obvious, but they exist if you know how to use the system. When it comes to illegal immigration, many of the stuff on the books is simply ignored. And frankly speaking, many illegal immigrants who come here to have a citizen child do so with the assumption that it will help them.

If we did not grant citizenship to the children of non-citizens, then illegal immigrants would have more incentive not to stay here.
An illegal immigrant can file their taxes using an ITIN, and if they have a legal child, they can actually get a tax refund.
If an illegal immigrant has been in the country for 10 years and has not been convicted of certain crimes, then their citizen child could be used to demonstrate an "unusual hardship", and even grant the illegal immigrant citizenship.

[-GAZKUL-]

Iraq was not a country till ~1930, when Britain granted it independence. You can't be a citizen of a non-existent country.

exactly!!!! then under your system all the Americans are Still British.

maybe it's a better idea then i thought :)

[Anoleis]

exactly!!!! then under your system all the Americans are Still British.

maybe it's a better idea then i thought :)
America seceded from the British Empire, becoming it's own country with its own citizens. Are you intentionally ignoring history?

[-GAZKUL-]

America seceded from the British Empire, becoming it's own country with its own citizens. Are you intentionally ignoring history?

as much as i'd like to ignore that little piece of history, just pointing out that your system doesn't work, if you take the parent's citizenship then you will eventually have to go back to their ancestry which'd prove it to be impossible to base Citizenship on that of the parents.

[Anoleis]

as much as i'd like to ignore that little piece of history, just pointing out that your system doesn't work, if you take the parent's citizenship then you will eventually have to go back to their ancestry which'd prove it to be impossible to base Citizenship on that of the parents.

People can change citizenship; happens all the time. "My system" wouldn't need to dig back thousands, hundreds, or even ten years to find out the citizenship of a parent.

Also, why would we need an ancestor's citizenship to determine a child's citizenship in "my system."

[-GAZKUL-]

Also, why would we need an ancestor's citizenship to determine a child's citizenship in "my system."

to work out the "citizenship of the parent"

i appreciate that it has it's merits but it just seems fundamentally wrong to me, unlike most american us Brits actually follow the concept of "All men are created equal" and this seems like an insult to that. Citizenship should be based on the place of birth regardless of any other factors and an Immigrants, including Illegal Immigrants should be granted citizenship to a host country after 10 years maximum. Maybe it's due to the fact that Scotland is a generally Left Wing Country (the Tories only hold 1 seat north of the border with the main parties being Labour, SNP, SSP and Lib Dem) but I firmly believe in Total Equality for all and Citizenship based on the Parents Nationality seems too racist and intolerant.

[Wio]

to work out the "citizenship of the parent"

i appreciate that it has it's merits but it just seems fundamentally wrong to me, unlike most american us Brits actually follow the concept of "All men are created equal" and this seems like an insult to that. Citizenship should be based on the place of birth regardless of any other factors and an Immigrants, including Illegal Immigrants should be granted citizenship to a host country after 10 years maximum. Maybe it's due to the fact that Scotland is a generally Left Wing Country (the Tories only hold 1 seat north of the border with the main parties being Labour, SNP, SSP and Lib Dem) but I firmly believe in Total Equality for all and Citizenship based on the Parents Nationality seems too racist and intolerant.
No, just stop. Stop being so ignorant.
There is no breach of equality by deriving the citizenship by parental citizenship at birth.
And how exactly is citizenship based on birth location so egalitarian?
"You were born here, so therefore you are better than someone else who wasn't born here thus deserve citizenship."
It's just as discriminatory.

Birth location is far less relevant than parent citizenship. One can incidentally be born in a country into which the person never assimilates. However one's parents will raise a person and the person will assimilate to the cultures of which their parents are citizens.

[-GAZKUL-]

i guess this issue could be got round by Introducing a Houkou but it'd kinda breach a few rights.

[Cless Alvein]

Let's look at this from the perspective of a few very real and very legal scenarios.

An American citizen is in the military. They are assigned to duty in Germany for three years and bring their family. They live in Germany on a what is basically an open-term work visa negotiated between the two governments, but they are citizens and legal residents of the US. In that time, they have a child. Should this child be a citizen of Germany or the United States?

A British woman is seven and a half months pregnant when she goes on vacation to Italy on a tourist visa. Two weeks later she goes into early labor and has her child in Italy. Is that child a UK or Italian citizen?

In both these cases it is obvious that the child should inherit the citizenship of the parents (let's assume for simplicity that both parents have citizenship in the same and only one country). Otherwise, the "host" country is practically stealing the child from the parents and creating great complications for them when they attempt to return home with the child. Fortunately for the American child, they automatically gain citizenship when they immigrate back to the US under current laws, and I assume the UK at least is similar. Thus these "citizenship by birth" exceptions are necessary additions to the "right by soil" system.

Now, when you throw illegal immigration at the already complicated citizenship question, why should this child have *additional* rights in the host country? In America the current answer to this is the 14th Amendment, but even the interpretation of the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" line in the citizenship clause is open to debate. The author of the citizenship clause intended children of foreigners and aliens to be excluded the same way that Native Americans who kept their tribal ties and the children of foreign diplomats were excluded.

Incidentally, "right of soil" is practiced by less than 20% of the world's countries.