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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
As a German myself I would like to here some arguments why citizen by the place you happen to be at birth is better?
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.
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.
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.
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.
The paper trail of blood citizenship would be a lot easier to lose.
Why would citizenship be based on where your parents are from?
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)
Dual ctizenship. Have both. Let the kid be of two nations.
That’s what a lot of countries allow. Not all though.
Yeah, that’s how it works for most countries
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
And where do you draw the line anyway? Especially in North America, only first Nations could be citizens?
Deal