Rule of Land or Rule of Blood?

[The Great Zaganza]

I think our disagreement stems from the differences in legal status of migrants and public sentiment towards them.

Public sentiment always boils down to;" we don't want them to take our jobs/marry our women".
But that has generally applied to foreigners as well as country folks and anyone perceived as low class.
And it was not shared by employers who appreciated the cheap and motivated labor.

The current types of legal restrictions of migration in many countries are, I think, unprecedented.
And they very much run counter to what employers want.

 

[ahhell]

I think our disagreement stems from the differences in legal status of migrants and public sentiment towards them.

Public sentiment always boils down to;" we don't want them to take our jobs/marry our women".
But that has generally applied to foreigners as well as country folks and anyone perceived as low class.
And it was not shared by employers who appreciated the cheap and motivated labor.

The current types of legal restrictions of migration in many countries are, I think, unprecedented.
And they very much run counter to what employers want.

I think you are correct. That being said, there have often been demagogues willing to take advantage of public sentiment against immigrants and when they get in power they often enact rules and laws against them. As soon as the US had immigration laws they were mostly meant to keep certain sorts of people out rather than to encourage folks to come in.

Some years ago I heard some pundit say something to the effect of, "If resonsible people don't deal with immigration, irresponsible people will" I think that's happening, certainly in the US and it seems a lot of European countries as well.

 

[Brainster]

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

Born in West Germany to American parents (Dad in Army). Have lived in the USA since 6 months old. Certainly in my case, rule of blood makes more sense, although I was told as a kid I could choose German citizenship at age 18.

 

[arthwollipot]

I have dual Australian (by birth) and British (by descent) citizenship. I applied for a British passport in 2000 and did not lose my Australian citizenship.

I think British citizenship in particular is a special exception, because colonialism or something.

 

[ahhell]

Born in West Germany to American parents (Dad in Army). Have lived in the USA since 6 months old. Certainly in my case, rule of blood makes more sense, although I was told as a kid I could choose German citizenship at age 18.

I grew up next to an air force base, lots of half German kids, IIRC, they mostly chose not to be German because the Germans still had a draft. Was your mom or grandmother a German? Almost no country gives citizenship to children of foreign diplomats or military personnel station there.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The people moving are browner than they used to be. In the case of Latinos (and Turkish, for a Euro perspective), many of them are still Caucasian... but nonetheless, browner.

That's one thing.

But then again, nothing has changed. The ancestors of some of those who hate these people used to hate migrating Germans just as much back in the 1850s. Also, some of those people's ancestors would be those exact migrating Germans. The latter is true of my entire region of Kansas -- with a little Irish Potato Famine blood mixed in. Many of the descendants of those German and Irish immigrants also hate Mexicans.

You forget, I will cite Ben Franklin to prove that germans are not white.

"Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth." Ben Franklin

And now people even think Guineas are white.

 

[theprestige]

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 think I really don't understand the issue. Granting citizenship to children born of citizens living abroad seems entirely reasonable to me. Granting citizenship to children of foreign nationals living legally in your country also seems entirely reasonable to me. Having both policies at the same time seems entirely reasonable to me. What's the issue?

 

[ahhell]

I think I really don't understand the issue. Granting citizenship to children born of citizens living abroad seems entirely reasonable to me. Granting citizenship to children of foreign nationals living legally in your country also seems entirely reasonable to me. Having both policies at the same time seems entirely reasonable to me. What's the issue?

What about granting citizen ship to the great grand children of citizens because their dad filledout the paperwork in time? Because that's jus sanguinis. My kids are Irish on account of me filling out paperwork. In the last 4 generations, we've spent all of 30 years in that country. Then's there's the most absurd version of jus soli, you are a citizen because you're mome was in the country long enough to give birth. You've never lived there, you mom spent a month or so there but you are a citizen. Both versions seem silly if ask me. Famously, Bruce Lee was born in the US, lived here for 4 months then was a citizen for the rest of his life. didn't come back for 20 years.

 

[theprestige]

What about granting citizen ship to the great grand children of citizens because their dad filledout the paperwork in time? Because that's jus sanguinis. My kids are Irish on account of me filling out paperwork. In the last 4 generations, we've spent all of 30 years in that country. Then's there's the most absurd version of jus soli, you are a citizen because you're mome was in the country long enough to give birth. You've never lived there, you mom spent a month or so there but you are a citizen. Both versions seem silly if ask me. Famously, Bruce Lee was born in the US, lived here for 4 months then was a citizen for the rest of his life. didn't come back for 20 years.

I think there's no right or wrong answer to that. It's going to vary greatly from country to country, depending on its population, demographic needs and wants, and various cultural factors. Ireland might need or want a very generous implementation of jus sanguinis, for reasons which aren't at all relevant to the US (for example).

 

[malbui]

It's all a bit of a minefield. My kids are Irish through me in spite of only ever having had a few holidays over there, but although born and legally resident in Switzerland they have no automatic right to nationality. There's a lengthy and often irritating process to go through if you want to naturalise and a fair number of people never bother.

 

[ahhell]

It's all a bit of a minefield. My kids are Irish through me in spite of only ever having had a few holidays over there, but although born and legally resident in Switzerland they have no automatic right to nationality. There's a lengthy and often irritating process to go through if you want to naturalise and a fair number of people never bother.

That's the other side of Jus Sanguinis, potentially, you could have ancestors having lived in a country for generations but still not be a citizen.

At prestige, sure, its not simple but neither really makes much sense if even a fairly moderate extreme is taken as an example.

Jus Sanguinis, potentially generations of folks that have almost no connection to the nation in question can be citizen, potentially folks that have lived there for generations aren't.

Jus soli, potentially folks with almost no connection are.

Some mixed version should be the law in most countries.

 

[Vixen]

I think there's no right or wrong answer to that. It's going to vary greatly from country to country, depending on its population, demographic needs and wants, and various cultural factors. Ireland might need or want a very generous implementation of jus sanguinis, for reasons which aren't at all relevant to the US (for example).

Surely, if you know your history, the Irish diaspora is huge. So many had to flee famine, unemployment and persecution. The automatic right to Irish citizenship jus sanguinis of grandparents is an acknowledgement that people left the country they loved because they had no other option.

Jus sanguinis is a reflection of ancient tribalism going back at least a thousand years in European history, and beyond. Many countries today are an amalgamation of various tribes all joined together by a wider boundary. For Example, Sweden used to be just that region called Svea (hence its name Sverige); Finland as part of the Swedish empire for over 700 years was just the bit below the Nöteberg line - north belonged to the Novogoradians. The Muscovites and the Novgorodians used to be two distinct peoples. As did the Saamis across the Arctic, now subsumed by the boundaries of Russia, Finland, Sweden and Norway.

The USA being a lot younger, heavy migration from Europe from about the mid-1600's, and then only on the east coast side (Virginia, for example). The Dutch nabbed New York, the Swedes predominated Delaware, the French the deep south, Scots and Irish bonded servants, too. It is little wonder jus soli would predominate in the USA, given its lack of any real ancient culture, other than the Native Americans, and even they were/are highly tribal.

Then there was religion defining nationality. At some quite recent point in history, you could not obtain citizenship unless you were a Christian (this kept out Jews and Muslims as late as 1897 in Norway, for example). The Jewish religion was even barred in the UK, with people having to practice it underground. That barrier has now come down. But there is a long way to go before the tribal ones come down to just jus soli, and to heck where grandpa hailed from.

I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of hundred years from now, Europe will be just one country, and today's countries little more than its counties. (Heaven forfend!)

 

[arthwollipot]

I think I really don't understand the issue. Granting citizenship to children born of citizens living abroad seems entirely reasonable to me. Granting citizenship to children of foreign nationals living legally in your country also seems entirely reasonable to me. Having both policies at the same time seems entirely reasonable to me. What's the issue?

Well, one thing I can think of is that in its extreme version, Jus Soli leads to so-called "anchor babies" - people will illegally cross the border to have their child, knowing that the child will automatically have citizenship. Some people have a problem with that.

 

[jimbob]

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.

Given the influence of slavery on citizenship, citizenship by land had to be given, I'd say

 

[theprestige]

Well, one thing I can think of is that in its extreme version, Jus Soli leads to so-called "anchor babies" - people will illegally cross the border to have their child, knowing that the child will automatically have citizenship. Some people have a problem with that.

That problem is easily and obviously solved.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, one thing I can think of is that in its extreme version, Jus Soli leads to so-called "anchor babies" - people will illegally cross the border to have their child, knowing that the child will automatically have citizenship. Some people have a problem with that.

What about crossing the border on a legal tourist visa to have a kid, should that kid get citizenship or not?

 

[theprestige]

What about crossing the border on a legal tourist visa to have a kid, should that kid get citizenship or not?

Depends on what the country actually wants and needs, in terms of population growth.

But what's wrong with legal residents only?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Depends on what the country actually wants and needs, in terms of population growth.

But what's wrong with legal residents only?

In theory not a whole lot, of course lots of things that in theory are neutral are used by design to discriminate.

 

[ahhell]

What about crossing the border on a legal tourist visa to have a kid, should that kid get citizenship or not?

Oddly, I just discovered that actress, Anya Taylor-Joy is an anchor baby. Apparently she was born in the US while here parents were vacationing in Florida. It seems a bit silly that she's a US citizen on account of that but no more silly than by kid being an Irish Citizen.

 

[Hercules56]

In present times, I think giving citizenship to anyone born in the country even if they are a the children of tourists or temporary workers, is silly. Citizenship should be inherited from other citizens.