• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      328 days ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        148 days ago

        Yeah that’s because we had a whole thing of people claiming that people born enslaved weren’t citizens or eligible to vote

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          48 days ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            28 days ago

            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”.