• Dozzi92@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Literally zero European countries do it. It seems to be in the Americas only, and Chad and Tanzania. The concept that this is some human right apparently only applies to he US.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Yeah that’s because we had a whole thing of people claiming that people born enslaved weren’t citizens or eligible to vote

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Which is really only used in the americas. Europe/Asia doesn’t use it, except in specific circumstances where the child wouldn’t be eligible for citizenship elsewhere. But even that is only due to treaties set up to prevent stateless people. If the child would have citizenship elsewhere (like in America), the European/asian country would tell them to apply there instead.

    • Geodad@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 hours ago

      US citizenship comes from the mother, if born abroad. The baby would automatically be a US citizen, possibly have dual citizenship.

        • Geodad@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Yes, I’m just saying that the baby of a US woman would not be a stateless person if born in a country that doesn’t have it.

        • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          7 hours ago

          That is technically true, while missing a key fact. Birthright citizenship is the norm for countries in the Western Hemisphere. The vast majority of countries in the Americas have birthright citizenship. The USA is not some rare outlier here.

            • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Most European countries actually do in a limited fashion. Countries that have signed the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness grant automatic citizenship at birth to people that would otherwise be born stateless.

              More countries should adopt birthright citizenship. It has a lot of utility to it. It prevents the formation of a multigenerational undocumented underclass and greatly assists in the assimilation of immigrants into the broader culture. It’s simply a fact of life that some immigrants will enter a country illegally. And while it is bad enough that they may live the rest of their lives in hiding, it’s even worse when people are born into that condition. You can end up with generation after generation, people with little to no ties to their “homeland,” living as a permanent underclass because they lack citizenship.

              It’s also a protection against some forms of tyranny and oppression. A favorite tool of tyrants is to strip citizenship from their victims. They’ll sometimes go back generations and declare decades-old immigration cases as fraudulent or invalid. Look at the Rohingya genocide, where the Myanmar government declared an entire minority group to be illegal immigrants. Having a hard rule that says, “if you were born here, you have citizenship,” prevents these tactics from being used on anyone except actual immigrants. Tyrants can still target immigrants, but their children are protected.

              • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                4 hours ago

                Jus soli is conditional, and doesn’t include hopping on a plane and just visiting a country, the birthing parents have to have established residence in the country. There’s also citizenship granted to children born to parents who are from whichever country it is.

                None of these represent what we see in the US. No country in Europe grants automatic citizenship to children born of foreign parents.

      • LyD@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The mother or the father, and it depends on circumstances. The rules are more strict when the father is the US citizen.

        • Geodad@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          If the father is a citizen, the mother is not, and the baby is born outside the US, citizenship does not transfer from father to child.

          If the status of the parents is reversed, citizenship does transfer to the child.

          • LyD@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Not to be rude, but where did you get that info? It isn’t correct. Doesn’t it sound a little too oversimplified for something like birthright citizenship laws in the US?

            • Geodad@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              I looked into it when people were talking about Ted Cruz being born in Canada. His mother is a US citizen, so he’s actually a birthright citizen.

              • LyD@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                3 hours ago

                Here’s the law if you’re interested in learning about it: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3

                It’s pretty easy to understand. It depends on a few different things - you can be born to a US mother and not be a citizen, or to a US father and get citizenship through him. It depends on marriage status and there are different residency requirements for different situations. Those requirements are different depending on which parent is the US citizen too.

  • Corigan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Also airlines won’t let a pregnant woman travel at that point

  • st33lb0ne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Here`s the fun part… you dont need an anker baby to come live in the EU. I think alot of countries here would welcome Americans who had enough of Trump

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It’s pretty telling about how much Americans know about other countries that the assumption is that Jus Soli is the norm.

      • neons@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Green: unlimited birthright citizenship Red: Limited birthright Citizenship Gray: (At least from my own country, Switzerland): No birthright citizenship

          • neons@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            recessive? what is recessive about this?

            Your parents can take a citizenship test and you’ll automatically be a citizen as well.

            Just being born here doesn’t make you a citizen. You must at the very least be able to speak the language. Having a citizenship test makes absolute sense.

            Birthright citizenship is an absolutely stupid idea.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 hour ago

              Birthright citizenship is an absolutely stupid idea.

              It’s no more stupid than citizenship by descent. Why should someone get citizenship just because of the citizenship of their parents? Shouldn’t they have to live in the country? Shouldn’t they speak the language? Shouldn’t they go through the country’s school system?

              Europe’s combination of freedom of movement and only Jus Sanguinis has resulted in a situation where there are lots of people with citizenship to a place they’ve never lived, and no citizenship to the place they’ve lived their entire lives.

              Really though, how citizenship should be awarded depends on if it’s an obligation or an opportunity. If a country is at war and drafting all citizens of a certain age, citizenship is an obligation the state puts on its citizens. If a country is at peace and provides a social safety net to all citizens, citizenship is an opportunity for its citizens. If the world were fair, people would be able to choose whether or not they wanted citizenship when they reached adulthood. It shouldn’t be something that happened automatically to children based either on who their parents were or on where their parents were born.

            • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Just being born here doesn’t make you a citizen. You must at the very least be able to speak the language.

              Ummmm are you expecting 2 weeks old infant to speak German?

    • Lumiluz@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Chile would be good. It has a fairly strong passport, which I believe is stronger than the USA one in 2025 (before Trump), since it can still travel to the EU visa free.

    • taiyang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Might I suggest a second good reason for South American countries— when nuclear war hits the US, and it will, the southern hemisphere has a shot of surviving a nuclear winter. Billions will die but mostly in the northern hemisphere, even after accounting for fallout spread.

    • Ofiuco@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      México is on it’s way to fascism so… Might want to check somewhere else

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 hours ago

          They just elected Claudia Sheinbaum, who is seen as being extremely close to the outgoing president AMLO. Some people were suggesting that she was so close to him that it was really his way of getting another term as president, similar to how Putin stepped down as president of Russia to become PM while Dmitry Medvedev became president in name only.

          How true is that? It’s hard to say. My guess is that a lot of it is sexism, thinking that a woman can’t think for herself and a woman president will turn to someone else for the important decisions.

          But, it’s true that under AMLO, there was a lot of democratic backsliding in Mexico. OTOH, Mexico has been dominated by PAN and PRI for decades. In fact, PRI won 14 elections in a row between 1928 and 1994. It wasn’t until Vincente Fox in 2000 that PAN was even a factor. So, there’s a lot of the power structures in Mexico geared towards supporting PRI and PAN.
          They were probably undermining a lot of the things AMLO wanted to accomplish. If he had followed all the rules and norms he might not have been able to accomplish anything because the establishment would have blocked everything he tried to do. That doesn’t excuse his rule and law breaking, but it does contextualize it.

          We’ll see what happens with Sheinbaum. I, for one, am fucking thrilled that Mexico’s president has a PhD in energy engineering. The fact she’s a woman is also historical, but to me the doctorate is more important.

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      As much as people are criticizing the proposed changes to this concept in the US, yes, this is true. In many countries that are arguably more free and democratic than the US even, this is not the way citizenship works and the post comes off as uninformed.

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      And weren’t they talking about getting rid of “birth right” citizenship in the US? So that might not even be how it works in the US anymore.

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 hours ago

        They can’t without a constitutional amendment. They might still try to argue that the current constitution says something it doesn’t; they might just extrajudicially say “fuck you” to it.

        But the only ones talking about it are assholes and - to be clear - not a majority of Americans.

  • Bruncvik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Ireland: Proof of residency for 3 out of the last 4 years before the child gets an Irish passport. It’s enough to present utility bills or paychecks for that period. I did it, and my kids only have Irish passports (even though they’d be entitled to both) until they are old enough to make their own decision in this matter. Or Trump decides to expand his golf course to the entire island.

  • AbnormalHumanBeing@lemmy.abnormalbeings.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Don’t choose Germany, though, we (and a lot of nations, actually) still for some reason have citizenship-by-blood/heritage laws more or less straight out of the 19th century, not citizenship-by-birthplace laws.

    • BurnoutDV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      As a German myself I would like to here some arguments why citizen by the place you happen to be at birth is better?

      • AbnormalHumanBeing@lemmy.abnormalbeings.space
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Basically: Resident enfranchisement. It’s weird, when people born in our country and having lived here their whole life can’t vote outside of local elections. My own father, for example, had a Dutch background, and was never allowed to vote in federal elections until his death. (Neither he nor I even spoke/speak a single phrase of Dutch)

        Yes, things have gotten somewhat better and easier with applications for citizenship, but that there are hurdles like that to begin with, is a bit… weird.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 hours ago

          That’s fine and is what most European countries have. What they have is minimum levels to say that a parent is resident (e.g. over a couple of years of a legal status). This is to avoid pregnant women doing exactly what the OP suggests. Make journeys last minute just to get their child a different nationality.

        • esa@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Yeah, the way things work in Norway and I expect in most other European countries is that you don’t get a citizenship for just being born here, but if you’re born and raised here, then by the time you’re of school age you’d have lived here long enough to become a citizen, and unless your parents isolated you, you shouldn’t have any problems with language requirements.

          Basically the system here is “stay here for long enough and make a bit of effort for integration and sure you can become a citizen”.

          Of course, the far right loves to portray this as “unrestricted immigration” and make it harder for people to do that, or even live normally, get education and services for their kids, etc. And then complain when the result is people who feel that the system isn’t working for them, or who have trouble because they’re uneducated and poorly integrated anywhere.

      • aleats@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Both jus soli (citizenship by birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood) exist more for historical reasons than because one is better than the other. Both are simply a way to try and make citizenship a more clear-cut thing, because it’s as close to being a made-up thing as you can get, especially in cases such as parents having a different nationality to the child (which is even more confusing when both parents are of different nationalities).

        Jus soli is more common in the Americas due to various factors, including an incentive towards immigration from richer countries during colonial times and the various movements towards emancipation of the enslaved peoples a few centuries later, but the fact remains that neither system is any more arbitrary than the other. Jus soli is often favored because it simplifies things like immigration and asylum seeking and reduces statelessness, which is still a significant issue that affects millions of people worldwide, mostly around war-torn areas.

        As mentioned in another response, enfranchisement is also a very important issue that jus soli resolves, although a significant part of it is also due to other, unrelated citizenship laws that may not necessarily conflict with jus sanguinis.

      • hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Citizenship by blood can be discriminating to children of immigrants. Say, you’re born in USA and spent all your life in there, would be spit on the face not considering you as a citizen

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          10 hours ago

          My parents of different nationalities had me in a third country. It would be really really shit for them (and me) if I didn’t share their nationality. They would have had a foreign child, who would almost always go for a citizenship as soon as possible anyway.

          Much easier to just give the kid a passport if their parents have one.

          And since I was born in a country that DOES have birthplace citizenship, I technically have three nationalities (only two passports though, way too much work to get the third one)

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 hours ago

      No European country has unrestricted jus soli for nationality. Ireland was the last one to restrict nationality by-soil to children of long term legal residents, which is the same as Germany.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I wish. My ancestors moved to the US from Germany in the 19th or early 20th century, but I’m pretty sure I’m not eligible for German citizenship.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Because that’s what true “citizenship-by-blood/heritage laws more or less straight out of the 19th century” would imply.

        • Genius@lemmy.zipOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Because their family has lived in Germany for a hundred years and they have no link to another place in living memory?

          • sexy_peach@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Most US-american families haven’t lived in the US for 100s of years, but they’re still US-americans, not Irish, Spanish, German etc.