Thread: Should being born in a country entitle one to citizenship?

And what about the parents? I was wondering about this from another thread. Should a person be entitled to citizenship from being born in a country, regardless of the status of their parents? Should that citizenship then apply to their parents?

I hear a lot about the alleged abuses that result from allowing citizenship due to birth, and the "anchor babies", but I've always assumed it was an urban legend. And I've never liked the idea that citizenship is dependent on ancestry, as opposed to connections to a country.

Being born in a country should entitle one to citizenship if the parents arrived and could stay in the country in a legal fashion.

Technically I hold dual citizenship myself because I was born to 2 U.S. citizens while outside the U.S.

People talk about the rights of citizenship but that is mostly a fallacy as they usually mean entitlements of citizenship. We ought to recognize there are only one kind of rights; human rights. Rights have only one way to be demonstrated: by exercising control over property.

There are responsibilities to citizenship, of maintaining the State. These responsibilities include payment of direct taxes and apply to those who have a literal stake in the country, i.e., own land. Only direct tax payers who do not rely on public assistance or are in default of debt should vote.

A sure fire way to destroy our national sovereignty and individual liberty is to allow those who defaulted on debt, rely on public assistance and do not pay direct taxes to have a controlling interest in the stewardship of the State via voting. We have done this and are now done for.

Citizenship is a legally defined status, and may or may not be conferred by place of birth.
In the US, birth within the borders confers citizenship unless the parents are not subject to the laws of the United States.
There is no natural law governing this, as nation-states are artificial constructs, some reserve citizenship for those born of citizen parents, some sell citizenship, some have rules of naturalization.

Originally Posted by goober

There is no natural law governing this, as nation-states are artificial constructs, some reserve citizenship for those born of citizen parents, some sell citizenship, some have rules of naturalization.

Well, yes, but how do you think that it should be organised?

Originally Posted by Hafke

Well, yes, but how do you think that it should be organised?

Pretty much the way it is, with different rules for different countries, this allows differences in rules to help or hinder the development of countries, and the best scheme will eventually sort itself out.

I think people should be able to be citizens of any country they want. After all, corporations, which are people too, can be formed in any country they want to and can change their national affiliation later by filling out the proper forms.

Citizenship by birthplace was simple and convenient when the US was in expansion mode, heavy immigration mode, and/or assimilating former slaves mode. It would still be simple and convenient if we had reasonably workable immigration controls, but unfortunately we do not. Until/unless we do, automatic citizenship should be suspended/repealed at the very least for children of illegals, and should never extend automatically to their parents regardless. But this won't be changed until it's too late because the same interests that prevent proper border contols do not want citizenship rules changed either.

I think people should be able to be citizens of any country they want. After all, corporations, which are people too, can be formed in any country they want to and can change their national affiliation later by filling out the proper forms.

That's pretty much already the case. If you meet the qualifications of the country being emigrated to, you can change citizenship whenever you want.

A sure fire way to destroy our national sovereignty and individual liberty is to allow those who defaulted on debt, rely on public assistance and do not pay direct taxes to have a controlling interest in the stewardship of the State via voting. We have done this and are now done for.

Sad but true unless the 'silent majority' of responsible US citizens wakes up soon, and the time for that is drawing short.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

People talk about the rights of citizenship but that is mostly a fallacy as they usually mean entitlements of citizenship. We ought to recognize there are only one kind of rights; human rights. Rights have only one way to be demonstrated: by exercising control over property.

There are responsibilities to citizenship, of maintaining the State. These responsibilities include payment of direct taxes and apply to those who have a literal stake in the country, i.e., own land. Only direct tax payers who do not rely on public assistance or are in default of debt should vote.

A sure fire way to destroy our national sovereignty and individual liberty is to allow those who defaulted on debt, rely on public assistance and do not pay direct taxes to have a controlling interest in the stewardship of the State via voting. We have done this and are now done for.

I guess you want to bring back debtor's prison too.

I have yet to understand the perversion that makes the wealthy want to become powerful as well. I think it must be that they are as imperceptive of reality as those who seek fame for it's own sake. Power entails as much obligation as privilege, just like fame means the end of real privacy in your life. This is why we have celebrities who beat autograph seekers and wealthy people who don't want to pay any taxes.

Our country has become the most prosperous in the history of the entire world largely by eschewing the principles of domination mad plutocrats such as yourself. We will stay that way as long as we continue our march toward greater democracy and refuse to yield to tyrants like you, who want to establish a despotism of rich over poor.

As to the OP we should return to the ways of the 19th century. Anybody, anywhere should be able to come here and become a citizen. It's how we built this country and how we could restore it now. Oh..and we didn't even HAVE direct taxes (by which I think you must mean Income tax,) that whole time. "Direct" taxes took a Constitutional amendment. Lots of libertarians don't like them, but now you want to use them as a test of citizenship??

I love how you guys prattle on and on about how your "freedoms" are always being taken away and then want to remove the most basic freedom there is from anyone who gets down on their luck. Typical "libertarians" The only real liberty you're concerned about is your god given right to fuck people over and get away with it.

Originally Posted by John Drake

I guess you want to bring back debtor's prison too.

Boy, that's a stupid conclusion...

This is why we have celebrities who beat autograph seekers and wealthy people who don't want to pay any taxes.

I don't know anyone who wants to pay taxes, and most of them aren't rich...

As to the OP we should return to the ways of the 19th century. Anybody, anywhere should be able to come here and become a citizen. It's how we built this country and how we could restore it now.

Anyone who wants to can become a citizen. The problem that libs have is that they think it's too difficult. Living in the 19th century is hardly the answer but, as you show us, Drake, it's the best answer you've got.

If parents are here legally, their child should be a citizen. If they're here illegally, then the child should not be a citizen.

Period.