Comment by trhway

Comment by trhway 5 days ago

allow to birth? Only God does that. US does entice tourists by granting citizenship to anybody born on US territory. If you don't like it - change the Constitution. If you aren't changing it, then you want it for some reason.

Edit: to the commenter below - what "moral" has to do with the Constitution provision? I mean beside the general understanding that Constitution is a law and following law is in general a moral thing, and that US Constitution was generally an attempt to write a good moral thing.

zahlman 5 days ago

I first have to ask: do you personally think it makes sense that couples can enter the US illegally, remain in the US illegally until a child is born, and have that child automatically become a citizen? Do you think it is moral? Why?

But just to clarify, GP was asking you whether that particular path to citizenship exists in other developed countries.

Reply View 12 replies

vel0city 4 days ago

I do think it's moral and makes sense to make people born here citizens. It prevents the formation of an underclass of stateless residents who do not have rights. The idea of Jus Soli goes back a long time, rooted in English common law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
And yes, lots of other countries have similar policies in place. Racists act like it's something that is only a thing in the United States, and that it was only created by the 14th Amendment, and have managed to dupe many others to become ignorant of history.

Reply View | 11 replies
- zahlman 4 days ago
  
  This has nothing to do with racism, and the implication is offensive. In the age of English common law, nations and states were conceived of fundamentally differently.
  
  Reply View | 7 replies
  
  vel0city 4 days ago
  
  > This has nothing to do with racism, and the implication is offensive.
  The history of the 14th amendment, Jus Soli, and birthright citizenship have loads of racism in their debates and history. I'm not necessarily calling you a racist here, I'm just pointing out many racists do these things for racist reasons. But you are the one suggesting the citizenship rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment is immoral.
  If you're truly ignorant of the history of the 14th Amendment and it's connection to racism you really need to read up on the US Civil War.
  > In the age of English common law
  We're still living in the age of English Common Law in many ways. It guides a massive part of our legal theory. I point to it because it seems you're taking the position the US is rare in its application of Jus Soli, as if only we made it up somewhat recently.
  For practically all free white babies born to immigrants living in the US even before the 14th Amendment Jus Soli was the standard. Racism prevented granting this right to others.
  What moral reasons do you give to not give citizenship to those born here? How is the 14th Amendment immoral?
  
  Reply View | 6 replies
- 15155 4 days ago
  
  > And yes, lots of other countries have similar policies in place.
  Which developed countries? Canada? Any other examples?
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  vel0city 4 days ago
  
  I shared a link with a list already. You should bother reading it.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  15155 4 days ago
  
  > lots of other countries have similar policies in place
  "Lots" of countries that nobody is clamoring to obtain citizenship in. Exactly one of them has a higher HDI score than the US, all of the rest are 20+ positions lower.
  How many pregnant American tourists are specifically traveling to Brazil to birth their children as citizens there?
  
  Reply View | 0 replies