• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rule of Land or Rule of Blood?

arthwollipot

Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
102,444
Location
Ngunnawal Country
I came across this article just now, and it covers something that I'd never really thought about.

Is citizenship granted to people who are born in the country (Jus Soli - rule of land) or on the basis of the citizenship of their parents (Just Sanguinis - rule of blood)? The article provides arguments for both methods, but I'm interested in a discussion. What do you think?

Blood (Jus Sanguinis) vs Land (Jus Soli) Based Rules For Citizenship
Brilliant Maps: May 20, 2024
 
I'm pretty sure that both exist around the world.

It is relatively common for pregnant women to try and get to specific countries so that they can have a child that is a citizen of that country.

I'm fairly sure that it's one of the things that immigration authorities try to prevent in various countries.

USA for example.

I ran into an interesting example of the complexities while working for Centrelink.

A person that was born on a British airforce base, in Germany, to Australian parents.

I think, in that case, it was ruled that he could have British (English?) or Australian citizenship, but not German.

It was a long time ago, but his parents may have also had the right to both English and Australian citizenship.

(As do I).

I was born in England, to English parents (and grand parents etc.) But became an Australian citizen in 1970.

Some people lost their Australian citizenship, because they applied for British passports during a particular period of time, that act of 'affirming' their British citizenship, cancelled their Australian citizenship. There's been a bit of chat about this in the media recently.
 
These are just excuses for implementing migration restrictions.


What is fascinating is that we see movement of people into a country as a problem for that country, when historically it has always been perceived as a boon: more workers, more soldiers.

What has changed?
 
These are just excuses for implementing migration restrictions.


What is fascinating is that we see movement of people into a country as a problem for that country, when historically it has always been perceived as a boon: more workers, more soldiers.

What has changed?

You're free to adhere to the progressive view that all people are essentially the same and interchangeable, but do you not even understand the view point of those who disagree? It's pretty simple, really; people from different cultures have different viewpoints. They don't all agree with your progressive liberal "anything goes" worldview.
 
You're free to adhere to the progressive view that all people are essentially the same and interchangeable, but do you not even understand the view point of those who disagree? It's pretty simple, really; people from different cultures have different viewpoints. They don't all agree with your progressive liberal "anything goes" worldview.


You missed the point.
 
My children were born and live in the U.S. but also have German citizenship because my sexy wife is German. Although she has been careful to keep their documentation, getting German birth certificates and keeping their passports current. We just today went to the consulate to renew the passports again.

America is rather generous in that regard, with citizenship by both land and blood. I don't know how many other nations allow it to be both ways like that.
 
My children were born and live in the U.S. but also have German citizenship because my sexy wife is German. Although she has been careful to keep their documentation, getting German birth certificates and keeping their passports current. We just today went to the consulate to renew the passports again.

America is rather generous in that regard, with citizenship by both land and blood. I don't know how many other nations allow it to be both ways like that.

Generous is one way to view it, but given the US approach to taxing its citizens, it may be something of a two-edged sword.

There are an unknown (but very possibly substantial) number of people in the world who are US citizens but who are unaware of the fact. They may have been born in the US when their mother was there for a brief period of time, or one of their parents is a US citizen. If this is the case then they have to submit a US tax return (which for overseas residents cannot be done online so it's hundreds of pages - Mrs Don's costs around £1,500 a year in accountancy fees) and may be liable for taxes on income which is exempt in their home country (Mrs Don had to pay tens of thousands of dollars in US taxes on unrealised gains on a UK tax exempt savings account - broadly equivalent to a 401k :mad:).

Relinquishing US citizenship is a complex and expensive process (especially if your net worth is greater than $2m in which case the US demands 28% of your total net worth as an "exit tax" :mad:) but if you can find yourself in very hot water if you're am "accidental" US citizen and don't know it (for example you could end up in jail for entering the US on your foreign passport). My adoptive father was a US citizen (I was adopted as an infant) and I was very relieved to find out that I am not a US citizen.
 
I have two passports by descent and one by country of birth and it’s very useful when travelling. I just need to keep tabs on which passport I use to visit which country and to make sure my tax affairs are reviewed by somebody competent.
 
You forgot Rule of Money

Plenty of countries offer Citizenship for Sale (aka non refundable investment) , generally starting at $100.000 .

Many, many people (who absolutely shouldn't) have a Maltese and/or Israeli passport that way.

It's a cheap way to circumvent Visa requirements and taxes.
 
Last edited:
The US did that, maybe still does. If you had $10 million, you could pretty much walk in.

I suppose you have proven you wouldn't be a burden, rather a boon via investment.

Has an elitist feel, but also practical and utilitarian and hard to deny.
 
I came across this article just now, and it covers something that I'd never really thought about.

Is citizenship granted to people who are born in the country (Jus Soli - rule of land) or on the basis of the citizenship of their parents (Just Sanguinis - rule of blood)? The article provides arguments for both methods, but I'm interested in a discussion. What do you think?

Blood (Jus Sanguinis) vs Land (Jus Soli) Based Rules For Citizenship
Brilliant Maps: May 20, 2024

The page reads like a revision course in listing the pro's and cons of each status but I have to say, the maps are striking in that they illustrate well the fact long established countries, such as in Europe, tend to be jus sanguinis, whereas newer countries, such as the USA, and Canada (both of which used to be British or French and even Dutch at some point in some part) tend to be by jus soli, probably because of the sheer recency of much of its population and huge waves of immigration during the early 1990's to 40's thanks to wars and economic upheavals. Pakistan, too, formed as a result of the bloody partition from India in 1948, meant that many Indians practising the Islam religion had to displace to the Muslim side and vice-versa. Countries that were old British empires had to allow for colonising Brits to be able to claim British nationality, even if their kin had not lived there for two or three generations. But then came the problem of keeping out those seen as 'natives' (sorry about the offensive word, can't think of a better one) so nationality law became very complex in countries such as Great Britain, France, Netherlands, Germany, Italy; just about any country that colonised other countries.

So, taking for example, persons in the public eye, British cabinet minister, Kemi Badenoch, whose both parents were Nigerian nationals, was able to claim British citizenship because Nigeria was once a British Protectorate with lots of British ruling class incomers having kids born there, so thus, there had to be a legal mechanism to allow those kids full British citizenship. However, as the law cannot be seen to be based on personal characteristics, such as 'race' (not in the UK, anyway), the way to get around the 'unwanted immigrants problem' was to date set it so it only applied to people born before, say, 1971, once Britain was no longer a colonising force in its former territories. But as Kemi's parents (one or the other, or both) had worked in the NHS in England during a relevant period and Kemi was born during that time - some say her mother made a point of making sure Kemi was UK born, [and why not, if that's the way the law works?]) - then Kemi had a right to full UK citizenship without having to jump through hoops. This process also worked for several other government ministers, whose parents were born in places such as India, Kenya, or wherever there were former British territories. The British Nationality laws have became far more complicated than jus sanguinis or jus soli. Rishi Sunak's parents were not even born in India but are only Indian by ethnicity via grandparents, strictly speaking they were second or third generation East Africans.
 
Last edited:
The page reads like a revision course in listing the pro's and cons of each status but I have to say, the maps are striking in that they illustrate well the fact long established countries, such as in Europe, tend to be jus sanguinis, whereas newer countries, such as the USA, and Canada (both of which used to be British or French and even Dutch at some point in some part) tend to be by jus soli, probably because of the sheer recency of much of its population and huge waves of immigration during the early 1990's to 40's thanks to wars and economic upheavals. Pakistan, too, formed as a result of the bloody partition from India in 1948, meant that many Indians practising the Islam religion had to displace to the Muslim side and vice-versa. Countries that were old British empires had to allow for colonising Brits to be able to claim British nationality, even if their kin had not lived there for two or three generations. But then came the problem of keeping out those seen as 'natives' (sorry about the offensive word, can't think of a better one) so nationality law became very complex in countries such as Great Britain, France, Netherlands, Germany, Italy; just about any country that colonised other countries.

So, taking for example, persons in the public eye, British cabinet minister, Kemi Badenoch, whose both parents were Nigerian nationals, was able to claim British citizenship because Nigeria was once a British Protectorate with lots of British ruling class incomers having kids born there, so thus, there had to be a legal mechanism to allow those kids full British citizenship. However, as the law cannot be seen to be based on personal characteristics, such as 'race' (not in the UK, anyway), the way to get around the 'unwanted immigrants problem' was to date set it so it only applied to people born before, say, 1971, once Britain was no longer a colonising force in its former territories. But as Kemi's parents (one or the other, or both) had worked in the NHS in England during a relevant period and Kemi was born during that time - some say her mother made a point of making sure Kemi was UK born, [and why not, if that's the way the law works?]) - then Kemi had a right to full UK citizenship without having to jump through hoops. This process also worked for several other government ministers, whose parents were born in places such as India, Kenya, or wherever there were former British territories. The British Nationality laws have became far more complicated than jus sanguinis or jus soli. Rishi Sunak's parents were not even born in India but are only Indian by ethnicity via grandparents, strictly speaking they were second or third generation East Africans.

The map is misleading, in that it only displays one or the other. The US (possibly others as well) is both. My two oldest children, both born in Germany (not on a military base) were US citizens at birth and neither is a German citizen. My youngest, born in Maryland, is a US citizen and would be if neither I nor his mother was American.
 
Malaysia’s rules are that if you are born to a Malaysian parent in Malaysia or Singapore, you’re Malaysian. If you’re born overseas to a Malaysian father, then you’re Malaysian. If you’re born overseas to a Malaysian mother, you’re out of luck and and have to get citizenship from the country you’re born in or from the father if possible. If you’re born to foreign parents in Malaysia, you have to hope one of them can confer citizenship, otherwise you’re stateless.

They’re trying to change these rules now to make them equal for Malaysian mothers, but someone in the home Ministry has used the opportunity to try to introduce changes which would make it difficult for aboriginal people to prove citizenship, so the whole set of changes might fail.
 
I came across this article just now, and it covers something that I'd never really thought about.

Is citizenship granted to people who are born in the country (Jus Soli - rule of land) or on the basis of the citizenship of their parents (Just Sanguinis - rule of blood)? The article provides arguments for both methods, but I'm interested in a discussion. What do you think?

Blood (Jus Sanguinis) vs Land (Jus Soli) Based Rules For Citizenship
Brilliant Maps: May 20, 2024
It's somewhat complicated..... :)

Ireland switched in 2005 to modified jus soli, mainly down to McDowell, though it did bring Ireland into accord with the rest of the EU.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, a person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, who does not have, at the time of the birth of that person, at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality, unless provided for by law.

Curiously, the state has never implemented the doctrine of coverture with regard to citizenship, in fact the 1935 act specifically disclaimed the doctrine.

Citizenship or nationality can be claimed by descent to those born outside teh State, if either parent or any grandparent was born in Ireland and is either an Irish citizen or entitled to be one. (This is a simplification)
In fact Irish citizenship can be continually transmitted through each generation born abroad, iff the births are registered in the Foreign Births Register.

Another local curiosity, even children bore here before 2004, to those with diplomatic status can claim Irish citizenship.
 
The map is misleading, in that it only displays one or the other. The US (possibly others as well) is both. My two oldest children, both born in Germany (not on a military base) were US citizens at birth and neither is a German citizen. My youngest, born in Maryland, is a US citizen and would be if neither I nor his mother was American.

So, the youngest could become President, but oldest two couldn't?

ETA: Forget that, they were born citizens so still qualify.
 
Last edited:
It's somewhat complicated..... :)

Ireland switched in 2005 to modified jus soli, mainly down to McDowell, though it did bring Ireland into accord with the rest of the EU.


Curiously, the state has never implemented the doctrine of coverture with regard to citizenship, in fact the 1935 act specifically disclaimed the doctrine.

Citizenship or nationality can be claimed by descent to those born outside teh State, if either parent or any grandparent was born in Ireland and is either an Irish citizen or entitled to be one. (This is a simplification)
In fact Irish citizenship can be continually transmitted through each generation born abroad, iff the births are registered in the Foreign Births Register.

Another local curiosity, even children bore here before 2004, to those with diplomatic status can claim Irish citizenship.

I saw someone who was technically qualified to claim Irish citizenship via close Irish descent but did not meet the criteria of wanting to have a strong link to Ireland. IOW if anyone is applying for an Irish passport in the hope of still being an EU citizen, you need to make an effort to show you are interested in Irish culture and Irish links in your application.
 
My cousins' children have British, American and Canadian nationality by way of place of birth, marriage and location. Quite crafty.
 

Back
Top Bottom