Taken out of context, I unfortunately can see how they might be able to get away with such an interpretation in the current political environment. The original context clearly opposes it, though....
The clause often referred to states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Trump wants to reinterpret the phrasing "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean that the federal government would not recognize automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents without legal status, incoming White House officials told reporters on a call on Monday, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss upcoming actions.
Taken out of context, I unfortunately can see how they might be able to get away with such an interpretation in the current political environment. The original context clearly opposes it, though. The intent of that clause of the sentence was to exclude children of ambassadors and foreign ministers, whose families were not subject to US jurisdiction, and, depending on who you asked then, native Indians whose lands were unconquered but considered part of American territory. Even in the extremely nativist time of the late 1890s, it was established in no uncertain terms in US v. Wong Kim Ark that all children of foreigners (edit: born in the US), except in a set of clearly delineated cases not including illegal status of the parent, were citizens of the US. It was further established in Plyler v. Doe (1982) among both the 5 concurring and the 4 dissenting justices that illegal aliens, being physically in the US, were obviously subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
I’d wonder about the other implication of a different interpretation. Wouldn’t that then make all aliens equivalent in rights to diplomats, if they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US?
I’d wonder about the other implication of a different interpretation. Wouldn’t that then make all aliens equivalent in rights to diplomats, if they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US?
I think the current supreme court has proven beyond any doubt that jurisprudence has no meaning anymore, and pretty much any previous rulings are fair game for "reinterpretation" to fall in line...
I think the current supreme court has proven beyond any doubt that jurisprudence has no meaning anymore, and pretty much any previous rulings are fair game for "reinterpretation" to fall in line with Republican party goals.
I've never understood the argument for jus soli existing and I'm not aware of any historical reason either. Most countries don't have it outside the US and Canada. This is the one thing Trump is...
I've never understood the argument for jus soli existing and I'm not aware of any historical reason either. Most countries don't have it outside the US and Canada. This is the one thing Trump is doing which I support. What are the arguments against this change?
The amendment is what assured the non-white immigrants and the descendants of enslaved people trafficked here had and always would have citizenship. Had our country been built on something...
Exemplary
The amendment is what assured the non-white immigrants and the descendants of enslaved people trafficked here had and always would have citizenship. Had our country been built on something different maybe we would have done it differently, but we explicitly excluded millions of people from having rights while using their labor, selling their bodies, and enslaving their children. Similarly numerous other immigrants - something our country literally put up a giant monument to - weren't granted automatic citizenship, despite their white neighbors being given the same rights.
Others have addressed the other issues, but this was to ensure we never again had a permanent generational underclass. And the entire amendment also protects equal protection under the law, Title IX, and many other basic protections for those who live in this country.
That is a very good point to raise. The fourteenth amendment's historical context is reconstruction after the Civil War, and it was designed very deliberately to reject the Dredd Scott ruling. The...
That is a very good point to raise. The fourteenth amendment's historical context is reconstruction after the Civil War, and it was designed very deliberately to reject the Dredd Scott ruling.
The southern states were required to ratify the amendment before they would have their congressional representation reinstated, as part of reconstruction.
Well, it's quite clearly in the constitution. To change it, you should really need to go through the process of amending the constitution, which is hard for a reason. As for jus soli, nation of...
Well, it's quite clearly in the constitution. To change it, you should really need to go through the process of amending the constitution, which is hard for a reason.
As for jus soli, nation of immigrants and all. With jus sanguinis, it's often impossible for entire generations of immigrants to ever achieve the same legal status and protections as citizens. In the US, it only takes a single generation.
Seriously, without jus soli, it's possible for your parents to reside in the US for years on various visas and have a very long path to citizenship. Then you're born in the US, have never been to...
Seriously, without jus soli, it's possible for your parents to reside in the US for years on various visas and have a very long path to citizenship. Then you're born in the US, have never been to another country (and maybe don't even speak the same language of your parents' home country/countries), have never been part of any other social context...why the fuck should you not be a citizen by default?
Sure, in this case you're really torturing the words on the page to have any chance of interpreting it differently. The mere fact that you are an illegal immigrant, implies that you are under the...
Sure, in this case you're really torturing the words on the page to have any chance of interpreting it differently. The mere fact that you are an illegal immigrant, implies that you are under the jurisdiction of the US, otherwise how are you illegally in the US if you aren't in the jurisdiction of the US?
Reinterpretations are not without cost. If we decide that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, we are effectively saying that the law does not apply to them. In effect, we are...
Reinterpretations are not without cost. If we decide that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, we are effectively saying that the law does not apply to them. In effect, we are granting diplomatic immunity to anyone who enters the country illegally.
MAGA Texans with Guns: "Nah, that just makes them Outlaws, by the old Wild West definition[1]. Time to break out the good 'ol rifle, it's open season on the most dangerous game!" [1] An old west...
MAGA Texans with Guns: "Nah, that just makes them Outlaws, by the old Wild West definition[1]. Time to break out the good 'ol rifle, it's open season on the most dangerous game!"
[1] An old west declaration of "outlaw" pretty much meant a person was effectively no longer considered a person in the eyes of the law or government - they had no rights, no privileges, and no protections.
I've been saying for a while that this same logic applies to Trump. He's explicitly not bound by the law, which means there ought to be nothing wrong with just shooting him, because he is outside...
I've been saying for a while that this same logic applies to Trump. He's explicitly not bound by the law, which means there ought to be nothing wrong with just shooting him, because he is outside the purview of the law.
If their parents don't have nationality to a Jus sanguinis regime then those people are stateless: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3987/text
If their parents don't have nationality to a Jus sanguinis regime then those people are stateless:
I’m hopeful that the judiciary won’t allow this. Even with their obvious slant, there’s no reasonable argument from a textualist, originalist, living constitutionalist, or any other rational...
I’m hopeful that the judiciary won’t allow this. Even with their obvious slant, there’s no reasonable argument from a textualist, originalist, living constitutionalist, or any other rational perspective. It would take some egregious motivated reasoning to find any other way to read that passage.
Virtually the entire Western hemisphere and sizable chunks of the Old World have jus soli. I'm opposed to getting rid of jus soli since I believe American soil is free and being born on it...
Most countries don't have it outside the US and Canada.
Virtually the entire Western hemisphere and sizable chunks of the Old World have jus soli.
I'm opposed to getting rid of jus soli since I believe American soil is free and being born on it entitles you to protection of your natural rights under American citizenship. The alternative I view as fundamentally un-American. I say this as someone who believes in common sense border and legal immigration policy.
Mostly historical. As someone else mentioned it's pretty clear that the intent was the way things have been working, and it's probably decently provable this was a net asset to the US. The...
Mostly historical. As someone else mentioned it's pretty clear that the intent was the way things have been working, and it's probably decently provable this was a net asset to the US. The question is does that still make sense, and sadly any nuance needed to discuss that has gone right out the window with the usual over the top extremist position taking.
Edit -
Oh and to be clear one of the main reasons this will be so controversial, is whatever side of the issue you're on, a president just doing an executive order to change it absolutely isn't how this is supposed to work.
There have been plenty of rational explanations for this already, so on a personal emotional level, it is a fundamental aspect of the American dream. Being a nation of immigrants is a core part of...
There have been plenty of rational explanations for this already, so on a personal emotional level, it is a fundamental aspect of the American dream. Being a nation of immigrants is a core part of the American identity. To remove it, is to literally spit on the dreams of our forefathers.
All of the new world runs on jus soli (I think only a couple islands don't), and if you need historical reasons to why, it should have been cover on your American history lessons but here is the...
I've never understood the argument for jus soli existing and I'm not aware of any historical reason either.
All of the new world runs on jus soli (I think only a couple islands don't), and if you need historical reasons to why, it should have been cover on your American history lessons but here is the first paragraph from wiki.
The fourteenth is also the one that should disqualify trump from office for the J6 insurrection. And if you think they are just going to stop at removing some of our rights, I have a bridge to sell you
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War.
This is an international forum, but this discussion is about a matter of US law. I'm interested in your goal when you come into the discussion to say that you support the change without...
This is an international forum, but this discussion is about a matter of US law. I'm interested in your goal when you come into the discussion to say that you support the change without understanding why it exists, possessing any of the historical context behind it, or knowing how broadly it's applied in the world.
My goal was to learn what the arguments for jus soli are. I'm an immigrant to Canada, earned citizenship without it, and come from a country without it. My sister then had kids in the US for the...
My goal was to learn what the arguments for jus soli are. I'm an immigrant to Canada, earned citizenship without it, and come from a country without it. My sister then had kids in the US for the purpose of them having citizenship, which is great for them and I support her decision from a self-focused perspective for doing so because it benefits her kids strongly.
But, it always struck me as strange that what she did was possible in the first place. I've always been opposed to it in the US and Canada, and when Trump said he wished to rescind it, in principle I supported it. However, some people clearly have strong opinions against his decision (otherwise it wouldn't make headlines), so I wanted to understand why.
I mean, it's pretty ignorant at best to not at minimum acknowledge the very obvious reasons why there is a difference between hemispheres in this respect. Any European who feels like having an...
I mean, it's pretty ignorant at best to not at minimum acknowledge the very obvious reasons why there is a difference between hemispheres in this respect. Any European who feels like having an opinion on the politics of a New World nation should be able to put two and two together on that one. Moreover, saying you support a change in policy in a foreign country you have no ties to when you have no current knowledge of how widespread the policy is or historical knowledge of why that policy exists in the first place is arrogant and doesn't reflect well on you. Europeans certainly recognize this when Americans make ignorant statements about their countries, so there's only so much goodwill pleading ignorance can buy.
I cannot imagine saying "I agree with Le Pen on X" or "I agree with Putin on Y" I might be like "So i'm used to doing things like X here in the US, is there a historical reason why things are not...
I cannot imagine saying "I agree with Le Pen on X" or "I agree with Putin on Y"
I might be like "So i'm used to doing things like X here in the US, is there a historical reason why things are not done like X, and someone as awful as Le Pen is backing it? I probably don't understand something."
We can all lack cultural humility sometimes, but it's on us to own it.
I have to allow it so that I can be okay with myself when I make ignorant statements about European countries :) I'm mostly kidding there, but I don't think Dragonfruit came from a bad place. To...
I have to allow it so that I can be okay with myself when I make ignorant statements about European countries :) I'm mostly kidding there, but I don't think Dragonfruit came from a bad place.
To be fair to Dragonfruit, many more Americans have an opinion on jus soli than know why we have it. Plus, even if Dragonfruit knew why jus soli was a thing in this part of the world, they may not agree with the rationale for having it and could be asking why an alternative wouldn't work at this point.
For what it’s worth, I’m very much European, including all ancestors that I know of, and would not be against jus soli necessarily. As always, a diverse hyper-society will spawn diverse opinions. :-)
For what it’s worth, I’m very much European, including all ancestors that I know of, and would not be against jus soli necessarily.
As always, a diverse hyper-society will spawn diverse opinions. :-)
You don't know the extent to which it affects me. You only know that I personally am not a US citizen. If you'd like to have further context: I immigrated to Canada (which is heavily influenced...
You don't know the extent to which it affects me. You only know that I personally am not a US citizen.
If you'd like to have further context: I immigrated to Canada (which is heavily influenced indirectly by US politics of course) from a country without jus soli, and gained citizenship here. My niece and nephew are in the US and gained citizenship by jus soli. This is excellent for them, but given where I came from and the way I personally gained citizenship, it struck me as odd that it was a possibility.
Even if none of this were the case, people are absolutely allowed to hold opinions about the politics of other countries. I'm sure many people have opinions about the Israel-Palestine conflict despite being neither Israeli (or even Jewish) or Palestinian. For a less tenuous example, you can take data privacy laws and fines for EU citizens.
I simply came here to understand what the arguments are against Trump's actions, since clearly some must exist given I supported his decision while other people do not. This is how people develop a more refined worldview.
I've been convinced his actions are wrong, though not because of any historical precedent about jus soli (since they're irrelevant to my immigration and ancestry so I don't understand why they might still be necessary), but because he is taking the incorrect path to make the change, as it should be done through a constitutional amendment.
Without jus soli, only the First Nations peoples would have inherent citizenship, and everyone else would have to "earn" it. The fact that this isn't the existing situation is why having it...
Without jus soli, only the First Nations peoples would have inherent citizenship, and everyone else would have to "earn" it. The fact that this isn't the existing situation is why having it remains so important ultimately.
But I'd encourage you to learn about it yourself, since you were unaware of how common it actually is. Most of the Americas have total jus soli but Europe for example has partial jus soli, which is still different than countries with no jus soli.
Dear Fae, it's a long time since I took courses in constitutional law, or in US law governing native American tribal groups. In 1924 Congress declared that being subject to tribal governments did...
Dear Fae, it's a long time since I took courses in constitutional law, or in US law governing native American tribal groups.
In 1924 Congress declared that being subject to tribal governments did not exclude native Americans from eligibility for citizenship through the fourteenth amendment.
I was actually referencing Canada by saying First Nations but I wasn't specific, sorry about that. But I wasn't saying the 14th did or didn't protect Indigenous peoples, I was saying that if we...
Dear Fae, it's a long time since I took courses in constitutional law, or in US law governing native American tribal groups.
In 1924 Congress declared that being subject to tribal governments did not exclude native Americans from eligibility for citizenship through the fourteenth amendment.
I was actually referencing Canada by saying First Nations but I wasn't specific, sorry about that.
But I wasn't saying the 14th did or didn't protect Indigenous peoples, I was saying that if we were solely jus sanguinis, and had been for centuries, the only citizens would be those indigenous peoples and their descendants.
We're not in that situation due to centuries of colonization and because of that history jus soli is so much more important in the US, Canada and the Americas. It wasn't the people who lived here's choice to have so much "immigration." Only they should get to "lock the door behind them" so to speak.
This has been an ugly day and probably not the time for purely intellectual arguments about history. Thanks for clarifying that you were speaking about Canada. There is a lot that could be...
This has been an ugly day and probably not the time for purely intellectual arguments about history.
Thanks for clarifying that you were speaking about Canada.
There is a lot that could be discussed regarding how the early supreme court and other founders reasoned about native Americans and about conquest as a source of legitimacy but it is the farthest thing from today's problem.
Wasn't trying to opine randomly or speak to early jurisprudence. I was saying as nations built on colonization, jus soli is important and encourage the person I was talking to to learn more.
Wasn't trying to opine randomly or speak to early jurisprudence.
I was saying as nations built on colonization, jus soli is important and encourage the person I was talking to to learn more.
Fundamentally, "citizenship" as status beyond existence as person is problematic. It always results in the development of second class treatment of some number of people who have no less of a...
Fundamentally, "citizenship" as status beyond existence as person is problematic. It always results in the development of second class treatment of some number of people who have no less of a right to exist as part of a society than the "real citizens". However, it's a logistical compromise, at this point. Whether any country has birthright or hereditary citizenship is more or less a matter of tradition and taste, in such objective terms. Just needed to preface any justification with that.
The key thing here is that, with the major exception of slavery, jus soli is the standard that the US has always used. It has not ever been a subject of serious debate (again, excepting slavery). When Asian immigration became a major issue in the mid-1800s, the debate was over preventing their admission, not refusing to allow their "native-born" descendants' citizenship. Since the days of the constitution's signing, even indigenous people were (technically, major exceptions abound in terms of reality [See elaboration below, and don't believe myths]) seen as American Citizens legally.
The mythos of America is that of a "nation of immigrants, united by common goals". Even obviously christofascist people would attest to agreeing with that idea if surveyed. Of course, the vast majority of the country is unaware of the vast breaches of that ethic, from the Jim Crow south to the systematic destruction of native cultures and forced sterilization of native people, to the WWII-era internment of American Citizens of Japanese descent, but that is the story almost every American child is raised to believe.
It has only been in the past decade that the idea of changing this fundamental aspect of US culture has become anything but fringe, and has taken a slow encroachment of propaganda and historical revisionism to do so.
It's only recently that the meme of "illegals are coming to steal our hard-earned riches with anchor babies" would make any sense in the domestic Overton window, since the basis of American culture is so built on embracing the creative and material production of first generation immigrants like Nikola Tesla, "Chinese railroad builders", and Africans brought as slaves. Add that root of culture to the betrayal of constitutional procedure and the obviously racial motivations, and there's very little acceptance of debate on this matter outside of propaganda echo chambers.
Indian citizenship act of 1924 The history section of this article disagrees with you regarding native American citizenship in the newly formed united states
Yeah, maybe I should have left that out. It was a really contentious issue, given the whole "manifest destiny" thing, and I'm not enough of an expert to break it down. There were sufficient...
Yeah, maybe I should have left that out. It was a really contentious issue, given the whole "manifest destiny" thing, and I'm not enough of an expert to break it down. There were sufficient numbers of American Indians who lived within the borders of the states at the time of the Union's founding that it was assumed by many of the Hallowed Framers that they would be treated as citizens as long as they Lived As Americans. Any who refused to integrate (and accept the implied tokenization and constant persecution etc) would flee the encroaching territories or be imprisoned as criminals, and eventually be forced to wage war to defend the unrecognized sovereignty they'd scraped out in the onslaught. The attitude of the State, though, was one of "the law-abiding ones are obviously citizens!" and it took a few cycles of forced relocation and the ablation of the Frontier as escape before the self-contradiction was so clear that citizenship was affirmatively granted. In 1890 Mississippi, black people were legal citizens, but that wasn't ever respected. Same dynamic with indigenous people. The myths aren't ever true, and the Law isn't ever applied Truthfully.
Taken out of context, I unfortunately can see how they might be able to get away with such an interpretation in the current political environment. The original context clearly opposes it, though. The intent of that clause of the sentence was to exclude children of ambassadors and foreign ministers, whose families were not subject to US jurisdiction, and, depending on who you asked then, native Indians whose lands were unconquered but considered part of American territory. Even in the extremely nativist time of the late 1890s, it was established in no uncertain terms in US v. Wong Kim Ark that all children of foreigners (edit: born in the US), except in a set of clearly delineated cases not including illegal status of the parent, were citizens of the US. It was further established in Plyler v. Doe (1982) among both the 5 concurring and the 4 dissenting justices that illegal aliens, being physically in the US, were obviously subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
I’d wonder about the other implication of a different interpretation. Wouldn’t that then make all aliens equivalent in rights to diplomats, if they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US?
I think the current supreme court has proven beyond any doubt that jurisprudence has no meaning anymore, and pretty much any previous rulings are fair game for "reinterpretation" to fall in line with Republican party goals.
I've never understood the argument for jus soli existing and I'm not aware of any historical reason either. Most countries don't have it outside the US and Canada. This is the one thing Trump is doing which I support. What are the arguments against this change?
The amendment is what assured the non-white immigrants and the descendants of enslaved people trafficked here had and always would have citizenship. Had our country been built on something different maybe we would have done it differently, but we explicitly excluded millions of people from having rights while using their labor, selling their bodies, and enslaving their children. Similarly numerous other immigrants - something our country literally put up a giant monument to - weren't granted automatic citizenship, despite their white neighbors being given the same rights.
Others have addressed the other issues, but this was to ensure we never again had a permanent generational underclass. And the entire amendment also protects equal protection under the law, Title IX, and many other basic protections for those who live in this country.
That is a very good point to raise. The fourteenth amendment's historical context is reconstruction after the Civil War, and it was designed very deliberately to reject the Dredd Scott ruling.
The southern states were required to ratify the amendment before they would have their congressional representation reinstated, as part of reconstruction.
Well, it's quite clearly in the constitution. To change it, you should really need to go through the process of amending the constitution, which is hard for a reason.
As for jus soli, nation of immigrants and all. With jus sanguinis, it's often impossible for entire generations of immigrants to ever achieve the same legal status and protections as citizens. In the US, it only takes a single generation.
Seriously, without jus soli, it's possible for your parents to reside in the US for years on various visas and have a very long path to citizenship. Then you're born in the US, have never been to another country (and maybe don't even speak the same language of your parents' home country/countries), have never been part of any other social context...why the fuck should you not be a citizen by default?
You don’t have to amend the constitution, you can argue that it should be interpreted differently.
Sure, in this case you're really torturing the words on the page to have any chance of interpreting it differently. The mere fact that you are an illegal immigrant, implies that you are under the jurisdiction of the US, otherwise how are you illegally in the US if you aren't in the jurisdiction of the US?
Reinterpretations are not without cost. If we decide that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, we are effectively saying that the law does not apply to them. In effect, we are granting diplomatic immunity to anyone who enters the country illegally.
MAGA Texans with Guns: "Nah, that just makes them Outlaws, by the old Wild West definition[1]. Time to break out the good 'ol rifle, it's open season on the most dangerous game!"
[1] An old west declaration of "outlaw" pretty much meant a person was effectively no longer considered a person in the eyes of the law or government - they had no rights, no privileges, and no protections.
I've been saying for a while that this same logic applies to Trump. He's explicitly not bound by the law, which means there ought to be nothing wrong with just shooting him, because he is outside the purview of the law.
If their parents don't have nationality to a Jus sanguinis regime then those people are stateless:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3987/text
Isn’t that a question for the judicial branch?
I’m hopeful that the judiciary won’t allow this. Even with their obvious slant, there’s no reasonable argument from a textualist, originalist, living constitutionalist, or any other rational perspective. It would take some egregious motivated reasoning to find any other way to read that passage.
Virtually the entire Western hemisphere and sizable chunks of the Old World have jus soli.
I'm opposed to getting rid of jus soli since I believe American soil is free and being born on it entitles you to protection of your natural rights under American citizenship. The alternative I view as fundamentally un-American. I say this as someone who believes in common sense border and legal immigration policy.
I’ve always hated this phrasing. Ask any two people and you will get two different “common sense” opinions.
LegalEagle actually has a pretty comprehensive video on this, including a lot of the history : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knH3v5aEe_g
If you ignore Mexico and about every country in South America…
Pretty much every country in North and South America has birthright citizenship.
Mostly historical. As someone else mentioned it's pretty clear that the intent was the way things have been working, and it's probably decently provable this was a net asset to the US. The question is does that still make sense, and sadly any nuance needed to discuss that has gone right out the window with the usual over the top extremist position taking.
Edit -
Oh and to be clear one of the main reasons this will be so controversial, is whatever side of the issue you're on, a president just doing an executive order to change it absolutely isn't how this is supposed to work.
There have been plenty of rational explanations for this already, so on a personal emotional level, it is a fundamental aspect of the American dream. Being a nation of immigrants is a core part of the American identity. To remove it, is to literally spit on the dreams of our forefathers.
All of the new world runs on jus soli (I think only a couple islands don't), and if you need historical reasons to why, it should have been cover on your American history lessons but here is the first paragraph from wiki.
The fourteenth is also the one that should disqualify trump from office for the J6 insurrection. And if you think they are just going to stop at removing some of our rights, I have a bridge to sell you
I'm not American so have not had American history lessons and US rights are not my own. This is an international forum.
This is an international forum, but this discussion is about a matter of US law. I'm interested in your goal when you come into the discussion to say that you support the change without understanding why it exists, possessing any of the historical context behind it, or knowing how broadly it's applied in the world.
My goal was to learn what the arguments for jus soli are. I'm an immigrant to Canada, earned citizenship without it, and come from a country without it. My sister then had kids in the US for the purpose of them having citizenship, which is great for them and I support her decision from a self-focused perspective for doing so because it benefits her kids strongly.
But, it always struck me as strange that what she did was possible in the first place. I've always been opposed to it in the US and Canada, and when Trump said he wished to rescind it, in principle I supported it. However, some people clearly have strong opinions against his decision (otherwise it wouldn't make headlines), so I wanted to understand why.
So why are you expressing support shit Trump does? specially for something that will not affect you in any way?
Tbf to OP, it's mainly the "new world" countries that uses jus soli. Many Europeans find it baffling and seemingly unsustainable.
I mean, it's pretty ignorant at best to not at minimum acknowledge the very obvious reasons why there is a difference between hemispheres in this respect. Any European who feels like having an opinion on the politics of a New World nation should be able to put two and two together on that one. Moreover, saying you support a change in policy in a foreign country you have no ties to when you have no current knowledge of how widespread the policy is or historical knowledge of why that policy exists in the first place is arrogant and doesn't reflect well on you. Europeans certainly recognize this when Americans make ignorant statements about their countries, so there's only so much goodwill pleading ignorance can buy.
I cannot imagine saying "I agree with Le Pen on X" or "I agree with Putin on Y"
I might be like "So i'm used to doing things like X here in the US, is there a historical reason why things are not done like X, and someone as awful as Le Pen is backing it? I probably don't understand something."
We can all lack cultural humility sometimes, but it's on us to own it.
I have to allow it so that I can be okay with myself when I make ignorant statements about European countries :) I'm mostly kidding there, but I don't think Dragonfruit came from a bad place.
To be fair to Dragonfruit, many more Americans have an opinion on jus soli than know why we have it. Plus, even if Dragonfruit knew why jus soli was a thing in this part of the world, they may not agree with the rationale for having it and could be asking why an alternative wouldn't work at this point.
For what it’s worth, I’m very much European, including all ancestors that I know of, and would not be against jus soli necessarily.
As always, a diverse hyper-society will spawn diverse opinions. :-)
You don't know the extent to which it affects me. You only know that I personally am not a US citizen.
If you'd like to have further context: I immigrated to Canada (which is heavily influenced indirectly by US politics of course) from a country without jus soli, and gained citizenship here. My niece and nephew are in the US and gained citizenship by jus soli. This is excellent for them, but given where I came from and the way I personally gained citizenship, it struck me as odd that it was a possibility.
Even if none of this were the case, people are absolutely allowed to hold opinions about the politics of other countries. I'm sure many people have opinions about the Israel-Palestine conflict despite being neither Israeli (or even Jewish) or Palestinian. For a less tenuous example, you can take data privacy laws and fines for EU citizens.
I simply came here to understand what the arguments are against Trump's actions, since clearly some must exist given I supported his decision while other people do not. This is how people develop a more refined worldview.
I've been convinced his actions are wrong, though not because of any historical precedent about jus soli (since they're irrelevant to my immigration and ancestry so I don't understand why they might still be necessary), but because he is taking the incorrect path to make the change, as it should be done through a constitutional amendment.
Without jus soli, only the First Nations peoples would have inherent citizenship, and everyone else would have to "earn" it. The fact that this isn't the existing situation is why having it remains so important ultimately.
But I'd encourage you to learn about it yourself, since you were unaware of how common it actually is. Most of the Americas have total jus soli but Europe for example has partial jus soli, which is still different than countries with no jus soli.
Dear Fae, it's a long time since I took courses in constitutional law, or in US law governing native American tribal groups.
In 1924 Congress declared that being subject to tribal governments did not exclude native Americans from eligibility for citizenship through the fourteenth amendment.
I was actually referencing Canada by saying First Nations but I wasn't specific, sorry about that.
But I wasn't saying the 14th did or didn't protect Indigenous peoples, I was saying that if we were solely jus sanguinis, and had been for centuries, the only citizens would be those indigenous peoples and their descendants.
We're not in that situation due to centuries of colonization and because of that history jus soli is so much more important in the US, Canada and the Americas. It wasn't the people who lived here's choice to have so much "immigration." Only they should get to "lock the door behind them" so to speak.
This has been an ugly day and probably not the time for purely intellectual arguments about history.
Thanks for clarifying that you were speaking about Canada.
There is a lot that could be discussed regarding how the early supreme court and other founders reasoned about native Americans and about conquest as a source of legitimacy but it is the farthest thing from today's problem.
Wasn't trying to opine randomly or speak to early jurisprudence.
I was saying as nations built on colonization, jus soli is important and encourage the person I was talking to to learn more.
Fundamentally, "citizenship" as status beyond existence as person is problematic. It always results in the development of second class treatment of some number of people who have no less of a right to exist as part of a society than the "real citizens". However, it's a logistical compromise, at this point. Whether any country has birthright or hereditary citizenship is more or less a matter of tradition and taste, in such objective terms. Just needed to preface any justification with that.
The key thing here is that, with the major exception of slavery, jus soli is the standard that the US has always used. It has not ever been a subject of serious debate (again, excepting slavery). When Asian immigration became a major issue in the mid-1800s, the debate was over preventing their admission, not refusing to allow their "native-born" descendants' citizenship. Since the days of the constitution's signing, even indigenous people were (technically, major exceptions abound in terms of reality [See elaboration below, and don't believe myths]) seen as American Citizens legally.
The mythos of America is that of a "nation of immigrants, united by common goals". Even obviously christofascist people would attest to agreeing with that idea if surveyed. Of course, the vast majority of the country is unaware of the vast breaches of that ethic, from the Jim Crow south to the systematic destruction of native cultures and forced sterilization of native people, to the WWII-era internment of American Citizens of Japanese descent, but that is the story almost every American child is raised to believe.
It has only been in the past decade that the idea of changing this fundamental aspect of US culture has become anything but fringe, and has taken a slow encroachment of propaganda and historical revisionism to do so.
It's only recently that the meme of "illegals are coming to steal our hard-earned riches with anchor babies" would make any sense in the domestic Overton window, since the basis of American culture is so built on embracing the creative and material production of first generation immigrants like Nikola Tesla, "Chinese railroad builders", and Africans brought as slaves. Add that root of culture to the betrayal of constitutional procedure and the obviously racial motivations, and there's very little acceptance of debate on this matter outside of propaganda echo chambers.
Indian citizenship act of 1924
The history section of this article disagrees with you regarding native American citizenship in the newly formed united states
Yeah, maybe I should have left that out. It was a really contentious issue, given the whole "manifest destiny" thing, and I'm not enough of an expert to break it down. There were sufficient numbers of American Indians who lived within the borders of the states at the time of the Union's founding that it was assumed by many of the Hallowed Framers that they would be treated as citizens as long as they Lived As Americans. Any who refused to integrate (and accept the implied tokenization and constant persecution etc) would flee the encroaching territories or be imprisoned as criminals, and eventually be forced to wage war to defend the unrecognized sovereignty they'd scraped out in the onslaught. The attitude of the State, though, was one of "the law-abiding ones are obviously citizens!" and it took a few cycles of forced relocation and the ablation of the Frontier as escape before the self-contradiction was so clear that citizenship was affirmatively granted. In 1890 Mississippi, black people were legal citizens, but that wasn't ever respected. Same dynamic with indigenous people. The myths aren't ever true, and the Law isn't ever applied Truthfully.