Talk:Jus soli

Stupidity

Is jus soli really less stupid than jus sanguinis? If your mum gives birth while on holiday, passing through, jailed, shipwrecked or otherwise detained in a country, should that give you the right to citizenship there? I'd suggest that the lesson is that belonging is a complicated issue and can't be determined by simple formulae. --Gospatric (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

"All conservatives lack knowledge of history and Costitution, what kind of biased statement is this?"

Gotta say lankster, it's not inaccurate. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Wellll just to be fair, we have this. Most of the time, conservative accuracy record isn't good. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Jus sanguinis... what?

@LeftyGreenMario I think this part has several problems:

Jus sanguinis in addition to being blatantly racist

Jus sanguinis in not based on race, the son of two Mexican citizens (Mexico has jus sanguinis) is a Mexican citizen, regardless of his race.

it for instance gives more rights to, hypothetically, descendants of 17^th century emigrants that don't live in the country or speak the language than third-generation immigrants who know no other home on account of their "blood"

I don't understand, jus sanguinis usually require that at least one parent of the child is a citizen, what has this to to with 17th century emigrants?

is also highly illogical. All human beings are immigrants or the descendants thereof with the exception of possibly a few people in East Africa, hence any "American blood" a citizen could possibly have is only determined by an ancestor of that person having immigrated to the US at some point — most likely after 1492.

Despite the name, jus sanguinis does not really check "the blood", so I have no idea how that sentence makes sense.

Unfortunately very few countries have newly introduced unlimited jus soli in the last couple of decades and many

As pointed out also by @Gospatric, jus soli is not necessary better than jus sanguinis, so this "unfortunately" is unmotivated.

--Lankaster (talk) 18:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The applications are racist. In the U.S., politicians have tried citizenship based on ancestry do so to try to bar minority racial groups. It's how we got the derogatory "anchor babies". This is a similar case here. What the argument is pointing out, again in U.S. context, is that a descendant of emigrants years ago isn't necessarily "more" deserving of citizenship than someone who is born to an undocumented immigrant who resides in the country. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 18:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

"In the U.S., politicians have tried citizenship based on ancestry do so to try to bar minority racial groups." That is different from jus sanguinis. If that paragraph makes an argument against "US politicians proposal of citizenship based on ancestry", then it should be written as such, not as a criticism of jus sanguinis. --Lankaster (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)