You must log in or # to comment.
Uh, very few countries have birthright only citizenship.
deleted by creator
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
None in Europe
Here`s the fun part… you dont need an anker baby to come live in the EU. I think alot of countries here would welcome Americans who had enough of Trump
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.
Not in Italy
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.
Is that true? Sounds kind of discriminatory.
sounds more like they don’t need a medical emergency mid flight aka 10km above the ocean
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?
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.
This only works if you go to the green countries:
Edit: Source
I told my wife we’re going on an extended vacation in Kenya. 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
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.
You got a very loose concept of “nazi”
You are aware I’m talking about birthright citizenship here yes?
I in fact did not.
Onward to Canada!
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
If it makes you feel any better not every climatologist agrees that a nuclear exchange will result in an apocalyptic cooling event. Its unclear how much soot will make it all the way into the stratosphere, how long it will persist, and how many fire storms would be created in the first place.
I’m still planning to off myself in the event of nuclear war though.
Goon holidays are the best kind of holiday
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.
Haha, that’s not how it works outside the US.
TIL the rest of the Americas don’t exist
*for the most part.
Some places it does.
Come to Brazil!
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.
Imagine US citizens flying abroad to have anchor babies.
And failing at it because most other countries don’t have birthright citizenship 😂
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.
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.
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.
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.
