6 ms·

Jus soli[0] and and jus sanguinis[1] are well known legal concepts for citizenship, and jus soli is rare outside of the Americas, it’s not controversial to move

Jus soli[0] and and jus sanguinis[1] are well known legal concepts for citizenship, and jus soli is rare outside of the Americas, it’s not controversial to move to jus sanguinis as the norm, except in the way that it’s a change from the longstanding way of things in the US. To a European, jus soli seems crazy. Almost as crazy as people using caps in their posts. I do wonder if you, or anyone, could focus on the question I actually asked instead of different ones they wish to answer. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

insane_dreamer 2y ago
> jus soli is rare outside of the Americas, legal concepts in other countries have absolutely _nothing_ to do with constitutional rights in the U.S.
- brigandish 2y ago
  Firstly, that isn't true. The US is a common law system, that common law being English common law, and because common law systems still share many features, they can use decisions and case law from other common law jurisdictions in their own decisions. Moreover, the US Bill of Rights is an extension of the English Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta (the founders were British, after all). From Britannica's introduction to the US Bill of Rights[1]: > The Bill of Rights derives from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689)… Wikipedia[2] adds: > The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and Magna Carta (1215) Both the Virginia Declaration of rights[3] and the Northwest Ordinance incorporate concepts found in the English Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, for example: > Mason based his initial draft on the rights of citizens described in earlier works such as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the writings of John Locke. And where do you think they got habeas corpus from? And finally, in the link I shared on jus soli[4], in the second line, it states: > Jus soli was part of the English common law I could go on but that seems enough. Not only is your claim completely erroneous, it's also not misguided to contrast the situation to show that it's not a strange or dangerous change. Of course, if you - or anyone - were to address my actual question then you might have the beginnings of a point. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-States-Constitution https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-State... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    > Firstly, that isn't true. The US is a common law system, that common law being English common law, and because common law systems still share many features, they can use decisions and case law from other common law jurisdictions in their own decisions While US law has its roots in English common law, and common law concepts were referenced by the Founding Fathers, it has absolutely no bearing on US constitutional law. It's interesting from a historical perspective, but that's it. Jus soli has nothing to do with the US constitution or US laws. Period.
    - brigandish 2y ago
      Bare assertion isn't a strong argument, especially when the constitution has been changed several times to add things that could also be said to have "nothing to with the US constitution of US laws". The president wants to change it, maybe it'll happen. Europeans will shrug, they've got their own immigration woes.
leptons 2y ago
I'm sorry that you think your goalposts are the only valid goalposts. I can assure you that the fascists in power don't care about your goalposts. For me the only goalpost that matters is trump trying to remove these protections. If you don't think he'll start removing natural born citizens after asking to do so, then I'm not sure there's anything point continuing this conversation. The fact that they are even trying to remove the protections that natural born citizens have always had in the US, should ring alarm bells for you, but somehow they are not. Maybe you really aren't familiar with the concept of "First they came for...", but you'll find out how this plays out soon enough.
- brigandish 2y ago
  I asked a straightforward question, à la the Socratic method, in order to allow the one making the claim to justify their position, à la Russell's Teapot. If you were not willing to answer the question from the beginning then you shouldn't be responding to me and wailing about "moving goalposts". My "goalposts" have been consistent since my first question - answer that question, please. If you wish to make your points without addressing my question then you can simply comment directly on the article or respond to someone else, hopefully with more relevance to their comment than your slightly unhinged responses have had to mine.
  - leptons 2y ago
    >The current administration have proven they do not care about any of these things. Even natural born citizens are now under threat. This is my original comment. You are moving goalposts where you want them to be. My comment is specifically about how this administration is threatening natural born citizens by trying to remove protections they've always had, and here you are seeming to say they aren't because no natural born citizens have been deported yet. You're simply just being an internet troll.
    - brigandish 2y ago
      Using the Socratic method, especially on HN is not “just being an internet troll”. If you can’t handle simple questions that undermine your claims then make better claims. Also, with your attitude I’m not sure this site is for you. Please refrain from the personal insults, it definitely lowers the overall tone of the board.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

> jus soli is rare outside of the Americas, legal concepts in other countries have absolutely _nothing_ to do with constitutional rights in the U.S.

brigandish 2y ago
Firstly, that isn't true. The US is a common law system, that common law being English common law, and because common law systems still share many features, they can use decisions and case law from other common law jurisdictions in their own decisions. Moreover, the US Bill of Rights is an extension of the English Bill of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta (the founders were British, after all). From Britannica's introduction to the US Bill of Rights[1]: > The Bill of Rights derives from the Magna Carta (1215), the English Bill of Rights (1689)… Wikipedia[2] adds: > The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the Northwest Ordinance (1787), the English Bill of Rights (1689), and Magna Carta (1215) Both the Virginia Declaration of rights[3] and the Northwest Ordinance incorporate concepts found in the English Bill of Rights and Magna Carta, for example: > Mason based his initial draft on the rights of citizens described in earlier works such as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the writings of John Locke. And where do you think they got habeas corpus from? And finally, in the link I shared on jus soli[4], in the second line, it states: > Jus soli was part of the English common law I could go on but that seems enough. Not only is your claim completely erroneous, it's also not misguided to contrast the situation to show that it's not a strange or dangerous change. Of course, if you - or anyone - were to address my actual question then you might have the beginnings of a point. [1] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-States-Constitution https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bill-of-Rights-United-State... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  > Firstly, that isn't true. The US is a common law system, that common law being English common law, and because common law systems still share many features, they can use decisions and case law from other common law jurisdictions in their own decisions While US law has its roots in English common law, and common law concepts were referenced by the Founding Fathers, it has absolutely no bearing on US constitutional law. It's interesting from a historical perspective, but that's it. Jus soli has nothing to do with the US constitution or US laws. Period.
  - brigandish 2y ago
    Bare assertion isn't a strong argument, especially when the constitution has been changed several times to add things that could also be said to have "nothing to with the US constitution of US laws". The president wants to change it, maybe it'll happen. Europeans will shrug, they've got their own immigration woes.

leptons 2y ago

I'm sorry that you think your goalposts are the only valid goalposts. I can assure you that the fascists in power don't care about your goalposts. For me the only goalpost that matters is trump trying to remove these protections. If you don't think he'll start removing natural born citizens after asking to do so, then I'm not sure there's anything point continuing this conversation. The fact that they are even trying to remove the protections that natural born citizens have always had in the US, should ring alarm bells for you, but somehow they are not. Maybe you really aren't familiar with the concept of "First they came for...", but you'll find out how this plays out soon enough.

brigandish 2y ago
I asked a straightforward question, à la the Socratic method, in order to allow the one making the claim to justify their position, à la Russell's Teapot. If you were not willing to answer the question from the beginning then you shouldn't be responding to me and wailing about "moving goalposts". My "goalposts" have been consistent since my first question - answer that question, please. If you wish to make your points without addressing my question then you can simply comment directly on the article or respond to someone else, hopefully with more relevance to their comment than your slightly unhinged responses have had to mine.
- leptons 2y ago
  >The current administration have proven they do not care about any of these things. Even natural born citizens are now under threat. This is my original comment. You are moving goalposts where you want them to be. My comment is specifically about how this administration is threatening natural born citizens by trying to remove protections they've always had, and here you are seeming to say they aren't because no natural born citizens have been deported yet. You're simply just being an internet troll.
  - brigandish 2y ago
    Using the Socratic method, especially on HN is not “just being an internet troll”. If you can’t handle simple questions that undermine your claims then make better claims. Also, with your attitude I’m not sure this site is for you. Please refrain from the personal insults, it definitely lowers the overall tone of the board.