The better term might be “abroad”, rather than “overseas”. Because Jus Soli is a concept that exists mostly in the Americas. So you’d better not cross over the Atlantic or Pacific sea for this plan.
No need to go overseas, almost all countries with birthright citizenship are in the Americas.
That isn’t the plan you think it is. The US is an outlier in terms of granting birthright citizenship. Most countries - and particularly, most developed countries - do not do this.
Canada, Mexico and a lot of South America countries do this.
And if you believe any of them are safe territory when it comes to what our batshit government might do, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn looking for a buyer.
I hope Canada is safe, becauseI live there.
Don’t look too closely at your southern neighbor, it might be alarming.
Obviously all of those are also Nazi countries
They would have to have birth right citizenship for that to work.
Buddy, trust me you really shouldn’t want Americans to become citizens in your country.
nobody likes immigrants, and that includes other countries
We don’t recognize birthright citizenship. You’ll have to fill in the paperwork like everyone else.
Americans posting memes against American Imperialism, while simultaneously having an American-Centric worldview about the world in regards to citizenship.
Ironic.
(No offense to OP 😉)
tbh I had no idea Europe was so racist. Citizenship based on “blood” sounds like something out of the middle ages.
Countries that use Jus Soli usually also have Jus Sanguinis. The USA for example. My friend is a US citizen despite not being born there because his mother is a US citizen.
Not having Jus Sanguinis would be downright horrible. Imagine your mother moves back to her home country and if you want to follow her you have to clear immigration hurdles.
It’s based on paperwork, not blood.
You can just turn up, release your spawn and claim it belongs there. We’re not frogs in a pond.
What a cringe attitude to have. People born in a country should have citizenship.
You love your pearly gates and blocking people out in Europe, don’t you?
People born in a country should have citizenship.
Why?
Because it assures that people raised there aren’t separated from the country of origin. It blocks issues. It’s better. Why do you think they shouldn’t?
How so? Seems reasonable to me to have the same citizenship as my immediate family. And if you want to change it you can apply for it and get it no problem.
It’s a good era in which to not have children. Expect a lot of forsaken children.
Also expect some coerced birthing programs such as the Leibensborn program (which was also an excuse to recruit young women as sex slaves for the Schutzstaffel ) and the offspring were supported by the state and raised by the single mothers.
This is the program that inspired the Handmaid program in Margaret Atwood’s Gilead, in A Handmaid’s Tale
And J. D. Vance is super thirsty for it, as is countless other Freedom caucus and MAGA Republican officials.
ETA That said, it might be a good time to get sterilized and commit to not having kids. (That doesn’t mean you won’t have chances to parent)
Counterpoint:if all leftists don’t have kids, then conservatives will end up as the entire next generation. Not to like say, definitely have kids, but anti kid propaganda only hurts us
Uh, very few countries have birthright only citizenship.
Here’s the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Unrestricted_jus_soli
If I’m counting correctly, 34 countries with unrestricted birthright citizenship, and 40 with restricted.
Well your kid won’t get citizenship, but you’ll be able to afford to birth them.
Is birth citizenship that common? Won’t work here in Germany for example…
Literally zero European countries do it. It seems to be in the Americas only, and Chad and Tanzania. The concept that this is some human right apparently only applies to he US.
Yeah that’s because we had a whole thing of people claiming that people born enslaved weren’t citizens or eligible to vote
I’m curious what the difference between how America went about giving slaves citizenship versus countries in Europe. There’s the obvious difference of birthright that’s an issue today, just curious why America ended up here and Europe did not.
I think at least some countries in Europe had a similar system as the US but moved to Restricted Birthright in the 80s because of freeloading - i.e. well off people with no connection to a country just flying over and having their kids there to give them citizenship in that country.
With Restricted Birthright the parents have to have been living in that country for a few years - so de facto being members of that society - to earn that right.
Personally I think it’s fair that those comitted to participating in a Society all deserve the same rights (including local nationality for their children) independently of themselves having or not the local nationality, whilst those who are not comitted to participating in that Society do not, and “being resident in that country for more than X years” seems to me a pretty neutral and reasonably fair way to determine “comitted to participating in that country’s Society”.
None in Europe
Doesn’t work in most countries. Being stateless isn’t very fun.
US citizenship comes from the mother, if born abroad. The baby would automatically be a US citizen, possibly have dual citizenship.
Most countries don’t have birthright citizenship.
Yes, I’m just saying that the baby of a US woman would not be a stateless person if born in a country that doesn’t have it.
That is technically true, while missing a key fact. Birthright citizenship is the norm for countries in the Western Hemisphere. The vast majority of countries in the Americas have birthright citizenship. The USA is not some rare outlier here.
I don’t think any european country has it…
Most European countries actually do in a limited fashion. Countries that have signed the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness grant automatic citizenship at birth to people that would otherwise be born stateless.
More countries should adopt birthright citizenship. It has a lot of utility to it. It prevents the formation of a multigenerational undocumented underclass and greatly assists in the assimilation of immigrants into the broader culture. It’s simply a fact of life that some immigrants will enter a country illegally. And while it is bad enough that they may live the rest of their lives in hiding, it’s even worse when people are born into that condition. You can end up with generation after generation, people with little to no ties to their “homeland,” living as a permanent underclass because they lack citizenship.
It’s also a protection against some forms of tyranny and oppression. A favorite tool of tyrants is to strip citizenship from their victims. They’ll sometimes go back generations and declare decades-old immigration cases as fraudulent or invalid. Look at the Rohingya genocide, where the Myanmar government declared an entire minority group to be illegal immigrants. Having a hard rule that says, “if you were born here, you have citizenship,” prevents these tactics from being used on anyone except actual immigrants. Tyrants can still target immigrants, but their children are protected.
Jus soli is conditional, and doesn’t include hopping on a plane and just visiting a country, the birthing parents have to have established residence in the country. There’s also citizenship granted to children born to parents who are from whichever country it is.
None of these represent what we see in the US. No country in Europe grants automatic citizenship to children born of foreign parents.
The mother or the father, and it depends on circumstances. The rules are more strict when the father is the US citizen.
If the father is a citizen, the mother is not, and the baby is born outside the US, citizenship does not transfer from father to child.
If the status of the parents is reversed, citizenship does transfer to the child.
Not to be rude, but where did you get that info? It isn’t correct. Doesn’t it sound a little too oversimplified for something like birthright citizenship laws in the US?
I looked into it when people were talking about Ted Cruz being born in Canada. His mother is a US citizen, so he’s actually a birthright citizen.
Here’s the law if you’re interested in learning about it: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3
It’s pretty easy to understand. It depends on a few different things - you can be born to a US mother and not be a citizen, or to a US father and get citizenship through him. It depends on marriage status and there are different residency requirements for different situations. Those requirements are different depending on which parent is the US citizen too.
This only works if you go to the green countries:
Edit: Source
It’s pretty telling about how much Americans know about other countries that the assumption is that Jus Soli is the norm.
What if I go to the gray countries? Do I despawn?
You can’t go there until the next expansion.
They have deathright citizenship. You automatically become a citizen if you die in their territory.
Green: unlimited birthright citizenship Red: Limited birthright Citizenship Gray: (At least from my own country, Switzerland): No birthright citizenship
hmmmmm, weird that the EU is so recessive in terms of birthright citizenship.
recessive? what is recessive about this?
Your parents can take a citizenship test and you’ll automatically be a citizen as well.
Just being born here doesn’t make you a citizen. You must at the very least be able to speak the language. Having a citizenship test makes absolute sense.
Birthright citizenship is an absolutely stupid idea.
Birthright citizenship is an absolutely stupid idea.
It’s no more stupid than citizenship by descent. Why should someone get citizenship just because of the citizenship of their parents? Shouldn’t they have to live in the country? Shouldn’t they speak the language? Shouldn’t they go through the country’s school system?
Europe’s combination of freedom of movement and only Jus Sanguinis has resulted in a situation where there are lots of people with citizenship to a place they’ve never lived, and no citizenship to the place they’ve lived their entire lives.
Really though, how citizenship should be awarded depends on if it’s an obligation or an opportunity. If a country is at war and drafting all citizens of a certain age, citizenship is an obligation the state puts on its citizens. If a country is at peace and provides a social safety net to all citizens, citizenship is an opportunity for its citizens. If the world were fair, people would be able to choose whether or not they wanted citizenship when they reached adulthood. It shouldn’t be something that happened automatically to children based either on who their parents were or on where they were born.
I think that the Restricted Birthright citizenship which is most common in Europe tries to navigate somewhere between those two extremes - in it basically if you’re a Resident in that country for more than X years (from what I’ve seen usually X years is 2 years) then your children born there get citizenship.
It filters out freeloading - well-off people who have no personal investment in a country and its future and never contributed to it in any way, just flying over and having their kids there to give them citizenship - whilst still extending the same rights as locals have to those who, whilst not having the local nationality, are participating members of that society.
I think the fairest way is to give equal treatment (including giving the local nationality to their children and making it available to they themselves after a few years living there) to those who are participating members of a society but not to those who are not members of that society, and that would also mean that the fairest treatment would be that the children of local nationals who have long ago left (and the children themselves never in fact lived there) do not get that nationality automatically for merely their parents having it.
Ultimately I think nationality should be earned by living as part of a Society and when they’re born children, having not have had a chance to “earn” it, would inherited that from the or parents.
That said some level of obtaining nationality based on the nationality of one’s parents makes sense to cover the time gaps of people who moved abroad and had children there before they could qualify for the nationality of the country they were born with, since otherwise those children would be stateless.
As for the decision mechanism being “years legally living in a country” it’s just the simplest and most equal for all (passing no judgment for things like what people do for a living) way of judging “participating in that Society” whilst only excluding people who were neither invited in nor taken in because they’ve truly need help (i.e. it’s only for legal immigrants and refugees).
Just being born here doesn’t make you a citizen. You must at the very least be able to speak the language.
Ummmm are you expecting 2 weeks old infant to speak German?
I expect the parents to speak german.
But I suspect you already knew that and just wanted to be the pigeon that shits all over the chessboard.
Really proving the ‘uptight wanker’ Swiss stereotype there.
Bye.
Either no data or they do not have birthright citizenship
deleted by creator
Red is restricted. Gray is most likely just no birthright citizenship.
Chad it is then.
What a chad move
Chile would be good. It has a fairly strong passport, which I believe is stronger than the USA one in 2025 (before Trump), since it can still travel to the EU visa free.
I told my wife we’re going on an extended vacation in
KenyaTanzania. She sounds stoked.I need to tell my brother to vacation in Uruguay this winter
among latam countries, probably the best one to move to now
Onward to Canada!
You know they hate you right?
This guy gets all his experience with Canadians from the internet
I know Canadians.
Might I suggest a second good reason for South American countries— when nuclear war hits the US, and it will, the southern hemisphere has a shot of surviving a nuclear winter. Billions will die but mostly in the northern hemisphere, even after accounting for fallout spread.
What a ray of sunshine
That’s what everybody will be saying in the Northern Hemisphere every time there is a break in the nuclear winter cloud cover, only with more feeling of joy (so, more exclamation marks!!!).
deleted by creator
You got a very loose concept of “nazi”
You are aware I’m talking about birthright citizenship here yes?
I in fact did not.
México is on it’s way to fascism so… Might want to check somewhere else
Didn’t they just elect a fairly liberal president?
They just elected Claudia Sheinbaum, who is seen as being extremely close to the outgoing president AMLO. Some people were suggesting that she was so close to him that it was really his way of getting another term as president, similar to how Putin stepped down as president of Russia to become PM while Dmitry Medvedev became president in name only.
How true is that? It’s hard to say. My guess is that a lot of it is sexism, thinking that a woman can’t think for herself and a woman president will turn to someone else for the important decisions.
But, it’s true that under AMLO, there was a lot of democratic backsliding in Mexico. OTOH, Mexico has been dominated by PAN and PRI for decades. In fact, PRI won 14 elections in a row between 1928 and 1994. It wasn’t until Vincente Fox in 2000 that PAN was even a factor. So, there’s a lot of the power structures in Mexico geared towards supporting PRI and PAN.
They were probably undermining a lot of the things AMLO wanted to accomplish. If he had followed all the rules and norms he might not have been able to accomplish anything because the establishment would have blocked everything he tried to do. That doesn’t excuse his rule and law breaking, but it does contextualize it.We’ll see what happens with Sheinbaum. I, for one, am fucking thrilled that Mexico’s president has a PhD in energy engineering. The fact she’s a woman is also historical, but to me the doctorate is more important.
Haha, that’s not how it works outside the US.
TIL the rest of the Americas don’t exist
Name a non-US country in the Americas that is not
- Are already closer to fascism than the US
- Currently threatened by the US
- Poverty stricken and lacking basic infrastructure (electricity, plumbing, internet) to a majority of the country.
*for the most part.
Some places it does.
Come to Brazil!
As much as people are criticizing the proposed changes to this concept in the US, yes, this is true. In many countries that are arguably more free and democratic than the US even, this is not the way citizenship works and the post comes off as uninformed.
And weren’t they talking about getting rid of “birth right” citizenship in the US? So that might not even be how it works in the US anymore.
They can’t without a constitutional amendment. They might still try to argue that the current constitution says something it doesn’t; they might just extrajudicially say “fuck you” to it.
But the only ones talking about it are assholes and - to be clear - not a majority of Americans.
