4 ms·

End jus solis. Allow all current parents to stay. There ya go, the humane solution to this.

• hsuduebc2 2y ago
  Can someone who down voted this comment please explain why? Is this because you do not agree with his general stance or because it simplifies and doesn't contribute to the debate?
  • tomrod 2y ago
    Not sure who downvoted, but simply ending jus solis because authoritarians want to make people's lives miserable is an extreme position with an awful BATNA.
  • wat10000 2y ago
    I would not consider a radical change to how US citizenship has worked for at least a century and a half to be “non-extreme.”
  • BobaFloutist 2y ago
    I think birthright citizenship is one of the few examples of America doing something strictly better than most other countries.
    • oblio 2y ago
      Why? Why should someone be a citizen because they were born in a specific country? With jus sanguinis things are much clearer: one of your parents is a citizen, you're a citizen. Your kids are citizens. In perpetuity. Jus solis is a bit like right of way at American intersections: the person that's been there the longest goes first. Whaaaaaa? What if two cars arrive at the same time? What if 4 arrive at roughly at the same time? What is people can't agree who arrived first? A lot of the rest of the world gives way to the car coming from the right. Which is obvious and basically non-negotiable. Similar idea here.
  • bee_rider 2y ago
    “End Jus Soli” would require a constitutional amendment and would be universally opposed by at least one party. So, it is bringing the conversation in the direction of ridiculous out-there topics.
    • LorenPechtel 2y ago
      And it can cause headaches with people being stateless because neither the country of their parents nor the country of their birth recognizes them. And that's something that's normally prohibited by treaty: you can't take an action that will render someone stateless.
      • bee_rider 2y ago
        Is that really so? It seems odd because not every country has soil-based birthright citizenship. So, there must be some combinations that will result in a stateless person (although I would expect that this is an exceptional case that is just handled as an exception).
        • LorenPechtel 2y ago
          And it causes problems.
          • oblio 2y ago
            Where? I haven't really heard of many cases like this. Usually the most abuse that happens is someone "forgetting" their citizenship and trying to gain asylum, because they know they can't get citizenship otherwise, anyway.
  • immibis 2y ago
    Because it recommends the government should just ignore the constitution.
    • oblio 2y ago
      No, I'm saying that the US government should be able to change the constitution, if its citizens want it. Apparently about 50% of the US population is rabidly anti-immigration. All this status quo is doing is creating all sort of gray area cruelty. Just be open about it, become anti-immigration, but make it fair. The US is basically the only developed Western country that I know of where you don't even have fixed time frame to become a citizen. In the EU + CANZUK if you live lawfully in a country you become a citizen in N years. The N is well known ahead of time.
• bee_rider 2y ago
  Birthright citizenship is explicitly included in the 14’th amendment of the US constitution. Technically the constitution could be amended again. But if we include wildly controversial constitutional amendments that one of our parties would be completely opposed in the list of possibilities, the conversation will quickly get silly.
  • throwaway48476 2y ago
    Foreign citizenship is being subject to a foreign power.
    • bee_rider 2y ago
      I don’t see any connection here.
      • throwaway48476 2y ago
        Birthright citizenship doesn't apply to children born to parents subject to a foreign power. That's what the text of the ammendment says.
        • bee_rider 2y ago
          That isn’t what it says. > All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. All people in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the US (other than some very unusual situation like diplomats and, in the past, some Native American tribes).
        • LorenPechtel 2y ago
          No. What the law says is that birthright citizenship does not apply to those *not* subject to US law. Foreign diplomats with diplomatic immunity. It's not the foreign power that matters, it's the lack of the US power.
  • oblio 2y ago