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.
Yes.
Because all the ideas of "national character" and "nation" are worth about as much as the paper to write them on, or electricity to transmit and display them, you get the idea.
Only the life itself matters.
And the life itself becomes the better the wider is the participation in the government and the society's life by all people in it, with which citizenship helps a lot. And people having a baby on some territory are obviously sufficiently firmly present there to be its inhabitants in fact, and all inhabitants of a territory should be citizens. They already, directly or not, pay taxes and work. Citizenship is (should be) just the other side of the coin.
It's not acceptable for two people to work in one country and one of them to not have citizenship. From labor interests, from ethics, and just from plain dignity, why the hell should someone living in a land not have citizenship? It's not a privilege. It's a set of rights and responsibilities, someone having a different set is segregation.
Also cultural diversity (not the artificial bunching together into protected groups, like that bullshit Americans do) is precious, having an influx of immigrants that become citizens without any fear of being stripped of that citizenship or being deported is a blessing. There are countries like Argentina, Brazil, USA, that once were close to becoming better and richer than Europe, US still is by inertia. They all had such a trait.
At the same time the education system should guarantee that such a citizen will really be a member of the society when they turn 18. Speaking the language, knowing the constitutional law at least. Not a ghetto dweller.
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.
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.
The US was never specified here so I didn't know it was the expected topic
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”.
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,
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.
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?
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.
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.
Unless 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.
Making immigration more difficult already benefits the wealthy. Not having birthright citizenship won't change that.
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.
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.
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.
Very important aspect! Thank you for mentioning this.
Fully agree. I would add that a child should be able to opt out in case their 'other country' does not allow multiple citizenships.
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.
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.
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.
