1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
For Reference:
Light blue countries have restrictions (such as permanent residency) so I wanna hear your opinions as well.
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.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optional
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.
I think you're misinterpreting my intentions. I believe that making immigration and citizenship easier is best. I just also believe that Jus Soli is an ineffective band-aid solution, that doesn little to help the common man.
I'm not informed enough to be very specific in execution, but in my mind, immigration should be extremely generous. Ideally, I'd say it should be effectively unlimited, but I know there are economic considerations that need to be taken into account, such as the rate of housing construction. That said, I don't feel confident enough to outline specifics beyond that. I have nothing against immigrants or immigration.
Its purely citizenship, and the political power it involves specifically that I believe shouldn't be given out based on geographic location at one instant alone. Given that its effectively giving you power to change how the country is run, it should be given to those who are directly affected by how the country is run. Ideally, I'd almost want a system where someone can't be more invested in a different country, although again, I'm not sure about specifics. Prehaps something along the lines of a limit of how much property can be owned outside the country relative to within the country, so regular people qualify easily, but someone can't get citizenship while they own a dozen houses elsewhere. Again, I'm not an expert, and not trying to advocate for a specific solution, just that immigration be made easier and citizenship shouldn't be something you can buy.
Edit: fixed a couple typos.