You must log in or # to comment.
Not sure how this is “news”…
This map is fake/confusing, France has both
Most countries have both - including the US.
The map is indeed confusing. It’s more a map of automatic-jus-soli / vs no-automatic-jus-soli. A child born of foreign parents in France can ask for French citizenship, whereas a child born in the US automatically gets it.
There are 6 corrupt SCOTUS justices about to make citizenship dependent on how brown the baby is in this huge blue fascist blob there on the left.
Just 6 sonsabitches is enough to thoroughly demolish a nation and make life less good for a sizeable portion of its 342 million citizens. Think about this…
That map is in complete contradiction to Wikipedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
The article you link to concerns itself only with jus sanguinis, which applies to the United States because a child born to an American parent is automatically American (with exceptions of course). So jus sanguinis apply to the US.
Jus soli also applies to the US by virtue of the 14th amendment.
Two things can be true at the same time.
OP’s map really is a jus-soli vs no-jus-soli map.
As European, the rule of the land is weird to me. Why would you give somebody citizenship if they are only born there? What is the rationale?
So you don’t have an effective caste system (see: Japan and East Jerusalem). Citizenship is essentially a statement from the government entitling you to political rights and some civil rights; the fact that that’s something that even needs to be given is an affront to democracy.
The 14th Amendment regularized the situation of the children of freed slaves. Without it, the United States would have had a massive population of illegal immigrants who would have had to be dealt with God-knows-how, since they couldn’t be repatriated to a country they’ve never known - even if their parents even knew which country they came from, if there even was a country at all.
In fact, the entire legal argument of Miller, Trump and the racist posse currently soiling the White House is that the 14th was only truly meant to solve that particular problem and nothing else, and therefore doesn’t apply anymore.
As for other countries that apply jus soli, they usually started doing so to encourage immigration and promote a “more desirable” population (i.e. displace the native ones), or bring in cheap labor. The US itself greatly benefited from easy immigration in fact, as they’re beginning to find out the hard way now that the immigrant population is being forcibly removed.
What is the rationale behind citizenship in the first place?
It’s a rather new concept that has only been around for around 150 years. The system it (gradually) replaced was worse, but that doesn’t mean we should keep the concept of citizenship.
I mean did citizenship even replace anything? AFAIK there wasn’t an analogous system before nation-states (and therefore modern citizenship).
Yes, in Europe (other societies, such as Japan, often had very similar systems) it replaced the estate system. In medieval Europe, there were three castes (estates): the nobility, clergy and commoners (including slaves and serfs up to the bans of those practices). Social mobility between these castes was very limited, though going from nobility to clergy was somewhat common. By the end of the medieval period, a new caste emerged: the burghers (citizens - the word itself refers to a city), which consisted of part of the city-dwelling population with elevated status. Under influence of the liberal-nationalist movement of the 19th Century, eventually the burgher caste superseded all the other ones, which were abolished or remain only in ceremonial roles and now most countries have a two-caste system consisting of citizens and noncitizens (even in India this distinction is now more important than the traditional caste system, which still does have major influence in India).
The status of foreigners, which became the noncitizen caste, varied by time and place throughout history. Some societies (like Japan) entirely banned entry of foreigners, in others their status was equal to that of commoners (unless they were foreign nobles or clergy of course). Pogroms and discrimination were commonplace, though, either informally and driven by locals, or decreed by rulers such as during the ethnic cleansing campaigns of the Reconquista. Be that as it may, the religious refugees during the Reformation and Inquisition to places like the Low Countries and Great Britain never had to “apply for citizenship,” and in some sense the current situation has become worse than the status quo ante. The United Kingdom, for example, introduced its first immigration controls in the early 20th Century.
Basically less bickering and fighting about who pays what tax.
In most jurisdictions, citizenship plays no role in taxation. The US is an outlier in this regard.
Taxation can be and is usually done solely on the basis of residency.
It’s been around much longer than 150 years. Rome and Greece both had detailed citizenship rules more than 2000 years ago.
Yes, but their concept of citizenship was very different from the current implementation. It was more like the caste system that predated it.
That is a gross misunderstanding of the ancient Roman and Greek citizenship systems.
Especially as caste systems typically have zero social mobility.
There was much more to it than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana
I’m curious, what’s the argument against it?
Equal rights good, discrimination bad.
