You must log in or register to comment.
This only works if you go to the green countries:
Edit: Source
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.
Onward to Canada!
I need to tell my brother to vacation in Uruguay this winter
among latam countries, probably the best one to move to now
I told my wife we’re going on an extended vacation in
KenyaTanzania. She sounds stoked.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!!!).
deleted by creator
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?
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
You can’t go there until the next expansion.
You got a very loose concept of “nazi”
You are aware I’m talking about birthright citizenship here yes?
I in fact did not.
Haha, that’s not how it works outside the US.
*for the most part.
Some places it does.
Come to Brazil!
Or don’t. We don’t care.
TIL the rest of the Americas don’t exist
Name a non-US country in the Americas that is not
- Are already closer to fascism than the US
- Currently threatened by the US
- Poverty stricken and lacking basic infrastructure (electricity, plumbing, internet) to a majority of the country.
And weren’t they talking about getting rid of “birth right” citizenship in the US? So that might not even be how it works in the US anymore.
They can’t without a constitutional amendment. They might still try to argue that the current constitution says something it doesn’t; they might just extrajudicially say “fuck you” to it.
But the only ones talking about it are assholes and - to be clear - not a majority of Americans.
Doesn’t work in most countries. Being stateless isn’t very fun.
US citizenship comes from the mother, if born abroad. The baby would automatically be a US citizen, possibly have dual citizenship.
Most countries don’t have birthright citizenship.
Yes, I’m just saying that the baby of a US woman would not be a stateless person if born in a country that doesn’t have it.
The mother or the father, and it depends on circumstances. The rules are more strict when the father is the US citizen.
If the father is a citizen, the mother is not, and the baby is born outside the US, citizenship does not transfer from father to child.
If the status of the parents is reversed, citizenship does transfer to the child.
Not to be rude, but where did you get that info? It isn’t correct. Doesn’t it sound a little too oversimplified for something like birthright citizenship laws in the US?
I looked into it when people were talking about Ted Cruz being born in Canada. His mother is a US citizen, so he’s actually a birthright citizen.
Here’s the law if you’re interested in learning about it: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3
It’s pretty easy to understand. It depends on a few different things - you can be born to a US mother and not be a citizen, or to a US father and get citizenship through him. It depends on marriage status and there are different residency requirements for different situations. Those requirements are different depending on which parent is the US citizen too.
Uh, very few countries have birthright only citizenship.
Here’s the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Unrestricted_jus_soli
If I’m counting correctly, 34 countries with unrestricted birthright citizenship, and 40 with restricted.
deleted by creator
tbh I had no idea Europe was so racist. Citizenship based on “blood” sounds like something out of the middle ages.
Countries that use Jus Soli usually also have Jus Sanguinis. The USA for example. My friend is a US citizen despite not being born there because his mother is a US citizen.
Not having Jus Sanguinis would be downright horrible. Imagine your mother moves back to her home country and if you want to follow her you have to clear immigration hurdles.
Yeah having it as well is good. Using only it is inhumane and barbaric.
For that matter, aren’t borders kinda inhumane and barbaric in the first place? They declare some people as second-rate. They trap people in poor dictatorships, but are oh so permeable for conflict minerals or products of sweatshops
Could your point be that generally more ways to become citizen is a better than less?
Yeah
It’s based on paperwork, not blood.
You can’t just turn up, release your spawn and claim it belongs there. We’re not frogs in a pond.
What a cringe attitude to have. People born in a country should have citizenship.
You love your pearly gates and blocking people out in Europe, don’t you?
People born in a country should have citizenship.
Why?
Because it assures that people raised there aren’t separated from the country of origin. It blocks issues. It’s better. Why do you think they shouldn’t?
Being the child of a tourist is not the same as being raised somewhere.
The kind of Ius Soli the US practices gives citizenship to the children of tourists and people being born in a plane flying over the country, without having been raised there.
Most european nations have special citizenship rights if you grew up in that nation or were born there after one of your parents has resided there at least some time.
Example Germany:
Children of non-German parents acquire German citizenship at birth if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit and resided in Germany for at least five years prior to the child’s birth.
Btw. after residing legally in Germany for 5 years the parent can themselves acquire german citizenship, so can the child upon turning 18, even if they weren’t born in Germany.
Example France:
Children born in France to foreign parents may acquire citizenship from age 13 subject to residence conditions. A child born in France to foreign parents becomes a French citizen automatically upon turning 18, provided that they reside in France on their 18th birthday and have had their primary residence in France for a total (but not necessarily continuous) period of at least 5 years since the age of 11. Children born in France to two stateless parents receive French nationality automatically at birth.
Also you can always go through the normal ways of acquiring citizenship. Upon turning 18 and having been raised in the country you usually fulfill all requirements for it.
That’s crazy that you need to be 13, or 18 to get citizenship in france. That’s some gated communities type shit. Personally, I’m not a fan of nymbys.
Oh wow, you are really doubling down on proving OPs point, aren’t you?
Yes. People doubling down on proving their own points is a normal thing.
How so? Seems reasonable to me to have the same citizenship as my immediate family. And if you want to change it you can apply for it and get it no problem.
You shouldn’t have to apply to be a citizen of somewhere you’ve lived your whole life. If your parents were immigrants and you’re not, you should have dual citizenship from birth.
Also, citizenship shouldn’t exist, but if it has to, it should be permissive enough that someone could never be refused citizenship of the only country they’ve ever lived in.
Well your kid won’t get citizenship, but you’ll be able to afford to birth them.
Is birth citizenship that common? Won’t work here in Germany for example…
Literally zero European countries do it. It seems to be in the Americas only, and Chad and Tanzania. The concept that this is some human right apparently only applies to he US.
Yeah that’s because we had a whole thing of people claiming that people born enslaved weren’t citizens or eligible to vote
I’m curious what the difference between how America went about giving slaves citizenship versus countries in Europe. There’s the obvious difference of birthright that’s an issue today, just curious why America ended up here and Europe did not.
I think at least some countries in Europe had a similar system as the US but moved to Restricted Birthright in the 80s because of freeloading - i.e. well off people with no connection to a country just flying over and having their kids there to give them citizenship in that country.
With Restricted Birthright the parents have to have been living in that country for a few years - so de facto being members of that society - to earn that right.
Personally I think it’s fair that those comitted to participating in a Society all deserve the same rights (including local nationality for their children) independently of themselves having or not the local nationality, whilst those who are not comitted to participating in that Society do not, and “being resident in that country for more than X years” seems to me a pretty neutral and reasonably fair way to determine “comitted to participating in that country’s Society”.
None in Europe
Don’t choose Germany, though, we (and a lot of nations, actually) still for some reason have citizenship-by-blood/heritage laws more or less straight out of the 19th century, not citizenship-by-birthplace laws.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Why would citizenship be based on where your parents are from?
No European country has unrestricted jus soli for nationality. Ireland was the last one to restrict nationality by-soil to children of long term legal residents, which is the same as Germany.
I wish. My ancestors moved to the US from Germany in the 19th or early 20th century, but I’m pretty sure I’m not eligible for German citizenship.
Why would you be?
Because that’s what true “citizenship-by-blood/heritage laws more or less straight out of the 19th century” would imply.
Because their family has lived in Germany for a hundred years and they have no link to another place in living memory?
Most US-american families haven’t lived in the US for 100s of years, but they’re still US-americans, not Irish, Spanish, German etc.
No European country has it. And no neither of those laws are more specifically “19th century” than the other, considering they are both much much older than that. Perhaps you should read up on history for a bit before making uninformed blanket statements like that?
The better term might be “abroad”, rather than “overseas”. Because Jus Soli is a concept that exists mostly in the Americas. So you’d better not cross over the Atlantic or Pacific sea for this plan.
Imagine US citizens flying abroad to have anchor babies.
And failing at it because most other countries don’t have birthright citizenship 😂
Also airlines won’t let a pregnant woman travel at that point
A quick internet search suggests 36 weeks (eight months), which is well into the third trimester, is the most common start of restrictions, and many airlines will accept a doctor’s note the woman is low risk even past that. It was a 2008 election blip when the media got ahold of Sarah Palin flying while in labor because she wanted her special-needs baby delivered by the medical team that had prepared for him, which suggests even the written restrictions in airline policy are not consistently enforced.
If a doctor clears you, they can’t deny it.
Sure they can. “My doctor said I can!” Well, they say you can’t. Why would a doctor’s note get you on an airplane?
It would shed the liability from the Airline.
I mean, sure, maybe in the ensuing lawsuit they could be like hey, her doctor said it was cool, but it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a baby being born on an airplane in transit. Nobody wants that, airlines will shut that down, and it’s not discrimination, it’s just a good decision.
Is that true? Sounds kind of discriminatory.
sounds more like they don’t need a medical emergency mid flight aka 10km above the ocean
Certainly you can, but a lot of hurdles to restrictions. And most obgyns won’t approve you if you have any risk factors.
It’s a good era in which to not have children. Expect a lot of forsaken children.
Also expect some coerced birthing programs such as the Leibensborn program (which was also an excuse to recruit young women as sex slaves for the Schutzstaffel ) and the offspring were supported by the state and raised by the single mothers.
This is the program that inspired the Handmaid program in Margaret Atwood’s Gilead, in A Handmaid’s Tale
And J. D. Vance is super thirsty for it, as is countless other Freedom caucus and MAGA Republican officials.
ETA That said, it might be a good time to get sterilized and commit to not having kids. (That doesn’t mean you won’t have chances to parent)
Counterpoint:if all leftists don’t have kids, then conservatives will end up as the entire next generation. Not to like say, definitely have kids, but anti kid propaganda only hurts us
That’s literally the very premise of “Idiocracy” you just described, btw.
There will be a lot of prodigal kids raised in conservative families who stay conservative. But then there will be a lot of kids who will be taught conservative values yet find as they grow up that those values don’t include them or friends, and they end up going through an identity crisis.
Adult children of conservative families grow up liberal or even radical left as they do conservative kids. There are enough unhappy childhoods to assure that’s the case.
We’re seeing this play out in Japan, which not only informs their population implosion, but also their significant rise of demographics like herbivore men who realize they’ve been culled out of the salaryman positions and are not going to be able to follow the path their parents set for them, so they stay single, and live on their own terms, even if meagerly. There is also a strong and rising feminist movement that’s emerged from a majority conservative population.
We don’t recognize birthright citizenship. You’ll have to fill in the paperwork like everyone else.
Ireland: Proof of residency for 3 out of the last 4 years before the child gets an Irish passport. It’s enough to present utility bills or paychecks for that period. I did it, and my kids only have Irish passports (even though they’d be entitled to both) until they are old enough to make their own decision in this matter. Or Trump decides to expand his golf course to the entire island.
Hah! Good luck finding one
Which is really only used in the americas. Europe/Asia doesn’t use it, except in specific circumstances where the child wouldn’t be eligible for citizenship elsewhere. But even that is only due to treaties set up to prevent stateless people. If the child would have citizenship elsewhere (like in America), the European/asian country would tell them to apply there instead.
