5 ms·
Only few countries give birthright to children born on their territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
by 47282847 2y ago
Only few countries give birthright to children born on their territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
- wat10000 2y agoIf by “only a few” you mean “almost every country in the Americas, plus some more.”
- 47282847 2y agoYes. As per the article, 33 countries. Of ~195 in total. Or, in population: 13%.
- wat10000 2y ago“A few” means, like, 3-5.
- mc32 2y agoI've known children of US citizens who were presumed Americans though having been born in a south American country. Government kicked them all out for being personae non grata Americans --children not excepted.
- wat10000 2y agoWhat’s your point? Other countries also engage in lawlessness to remove people they don’t like?
- mc32 2y agoWell, people are acting like it’s uniquely an American thing to do.
- wat10000 2y agoThey are? Where?
- low_tech_love 2y agoThat’s because, for a while, the USA has been seen as the main exponent (although obviously not the only one) of western ideals such as freedom, democracy, human rights, etc. So yeah it’s logical that people would expect that the “leader of the free world” does not act like some other random country.
- tomrod 2y agoOne of which is the US,and would require a constitutional amendment to change.
- mc32 2y agoRather a different interpretation of the XIV. It was intended for slaves and the children of slaves (there were few non-British foreigners in the US) at the time. However, over time, it was interpreted to mean anyone not only the descendants of slaves/ex-slaves). That could very well be re-interpreted.
- wat10000 2y ago“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.” This seems pretty clear to me. How else could you interpret it?
- remarkEon 2y agoThe entire interpretation of that amendment turns on this phrase: >and subject to the jurisdiction thereof And if you go back and read what the drafters of that amendment stated they meant on the floor of congress, they did not intend it to mean Jus soli. The idea was so ridiculous at the time that no one thought it worth writing it down. Pity. The controlling Supreme Court case spends a lot of time talking about English Common Law and what "subject to the jurisdiction of the King" meant. It is not hard to believe, at all, that the current SCOTUS may have a different interpretation than "anyone who happens to be born across this line on the map is a US citizen and is granted all rights, responsibilities, and privileges thereof".
- wat10000 2y agoDo you have more info about what they said they meant? Certainly that clause has weight. It excludes diplomats, members of occupying armies, and members of Native tribes. But it seems strange to apply it to others, unless you’re also going to say that they have immunity from our laws as well.
- neither_color 2y agoIt's not a few. It's the majority of two continents.
- mc32 2y agoIt's the great minority of countries in the world.
- neither_color 2y agoWell then it's a good thing historical context matters more than numerical consensus when analyzing why the majority of two continents settled by Europeans in the last 500 years nearly all opted for one broad form of conferring citizenship over another. If you were to redact the name of all 195 countries, but list ten facts about them and draw random names, you could accurately predict which ones will have birthright citizenship just by looking at other properties.