Comment by 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.
> 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?
> But you are the one suggesting the citizenship rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment is immoral.
I am not suggesting any such thing. I am suggesting it specifically about people who are born to those who did not have a legal right to be in the country in the first place.
The 14th amendment was passed primarily to protect slaves whose families had been in the country for generations, and the presence of whose ancestors was explicitly solicited by slave-owning citizens.
> I point to it because it seems you're taking the position the US is rare in its application of Jus Soli
I'm not. I'm supposing that it's outdated, and was not designed to reflect considerations like mass amounts of illegal immigration — especially from poor countries to much wealthier bordering ones, in an world where wealthy countries provide a social safety net that medieval Brits couldn't even have dreamed of.
Edit: as a sibling comment points out, the progenitors of English common law also could not have foreseen a world of ordinary people wealthy enough to travel internationally and have children abroad because citizenship in other countries would be favourable to their family. They could not even have foreseen a world in which the common folk could travel from England to France within hours on a whim.
The text of the 14th Amendment in regards to birthright citizenship:
> 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
So now that we have that to reference...
> The 14th amendment was passed primarily to protect slaves whose families had been in the country for generations
Where is the generational requirement?
> presence of whose ancestors was explicitly solicited by slave-owning citizens
I don't see anything explicitly talking about slavery here.
Sure sounds like someone is trying to rewrite the amendment here. Sure seems to me it says "all persons", not just "all persons who were multi-generational slaves before the passage of this amendment".
> was not designed to reflect considerations like mass amounts of illegal immigration
You mean all those immigrants didn't think about the idea there could be massive amounts of immigration? The passage of the 14th Amendment happened in 1868. That's 18 years after the massive wave of immigration from the Irish Great Famine of 1845. That's after the massive migration of Asians during the California gold rush of 1849. You really think the writers were just fully ignorant of the potential of mass migrations?
I'll grant you they probably would not have imagined the amount of social safety net we have today, but I just can't agree they couldn't think about massive waves of people migrating for economic reasons. Those were definitely very salient issues at the time. Although it wouldn't be until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1889 that they actually took real action to significantly close the gates of US immigration. And they did so on racial lines, go figure.
My family came here before the passage of the 14th Amendment by pretty much just showing up and staying here for a couple of years. Their kids automatically became citizens at their birth even for the parents that never actually applied for citizenship. This is how it was for most of this country's history.
You've still not directly given me a reason why birthright citizenship is immoral. I've given you arguments as to why it is moral; it prevents the creation of an underclass of residents without full rights, something I'd hope we could both agree is immoral and bad. Can you tell me how granting citizenship to children of those without proper residency is somehow immoral?
> 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?
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.