You're viewing a single thread.
This only works if you go to the green countries:
Edit: Source
It's pretty telling about how much Americans know about other countries that the assumption is that Jus Soli is the norm.
What if I go to the gray countries? Do I despawn?
You can't go there until the next expansion.
They have deathright citizenship. You automatically become a citizen if you die in their territory.
Green: unlimited birthright citizenship Red: Limited birthright Citizenship Gray: (At least from my own country, Switzerland): No birthright citizenship
hmmmmm, weird that the EU is so recessive in terms of birthright citizenship.
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.
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 they were born.
I think that the Restricted Birthright citizenship which is most common in Europe tries to navigate somewhere between those two extremes - in it basically if you're a Resident in that country for more than X years (from what I've seen usually X years is 2 years) then your children born there get citizenship.
It filters out freeloading - well-off people who have no personal investment in a country and its future and never contributed to it in any way, just flying over and having their kids there to give them citizenship - whilst still extending the same rights as locals have to those who, whilst not having the local nationality, are participating members of that society.
I think the fairest way is to give equal treatment (including giving the local nationality to their children and making it available to they themselves after a few years living there) to those who are participating members of a society but not to those who are not members of that society, and that would also mean that the fairest treatment would be that the children of local nationals who have long ago left (and the children themselves never in fact lived there) do not get that nationality automatically for merely their parents having it.
Ultimately I think nationality should be earned by living as part of a Society and when they're born children, having not have had a chance to "earn" it, would inherited that from the or parents.
That said some level of obtaining nationality based on the nationality of one's parents makes sense to cover the time gaps of people who moved abroad and had children there before they could qualify for the nationality of the country they were born with, since otherwise those children would be stateless.
As for the decision mechanism being "years legally living in a country" it's just the simplest and most equal for all (passing no judgment for things like what people do for a living) way of judging "participating in that Society" whilst only excluding people who were neither invited in nor taken in because they've truly need help (i.e. it's only for legal immigrants and refugees).
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?
I expect the parents to speak german.
But I suspect you already knew that and just wanted to be the pigeon that shits all over the chessboard.
Really proving the 'uptight wanker' Swiss stereotype there.
Bye.
Chad it is then.
What a chad move
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.
I told my wife we're going on an extended vacation in
KenyaTanzania. She sounds stoked.I need to tell my brother to vacation in Uruguay this winter
among latam countries, probably the best one to move to now
Onward to Canada!
You know they hate you right?
I know Canadians.
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.
What a ray of sunshine
That's what everybody will be saying in the Northern Hemisphere every time there is a break in the nuclear winter cloud cover, only with more feeling of joy (so, more exclamation marks!!!).
You got a very loose concept of "nazi"
You are aware I'm talking about birthright citizenship here yes?
I in fact did not.
México is on it's way to fascism so... Might want to check somewhere else
Didn't they just elect a fairly liberal president?
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.