Comment by vel0city
9 hours ago
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.
This has nothing to do with racism, and the implication is offensive. In the age of English common law, nations and states were conceived of fundamentally differently.
> 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 I'm supposing that it's outdated, and was not designed to reflect considerations like mass amounts of illegal immigration — especially from poor countries to much wealthier bordering ones, in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.
1 reply →
> What moral reasons do you give to not give citizenship to those born here?
Why should someone on vacation be able to automatically tap into already-limited social safety nets for their children? They have contributed next to nothing.
3 replies →
> And yes, lots of other countries have similar policies in place.
Which developed countries? Canada? Any other examples?
I shared a link with a list already. You should bother reading it.
> 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?