Not the person giving birth but the progeny. Most countries ~164 out of 194) are jus sanguinis (you inherit nationality of parent(s)) we are one of the exceptions with jus soli. We even have “birth tourism” taking advantage of our liberal policy.
Not false. How is ~164 out of 194 countries jus sanguinis not most? There are approx 30 of 194 that are jus soli. How is that “false”.
And except for Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chili and Uruguay, the rest aren’t what one would think of as “sought after”, otherwise you’d have other people trying to take advantage of their citizenship policies.
I’m not pro jus soli but to characterize birth tourism as a big problem is crazy. A conservative think tank estimated it at 40,000 births per year out of 4.3 million (0.9%) — the average delivery costs $32,000 for an economic benefit of $1.28B per year. Then those poor kids are going to have to pay US income taxes for the rest of their natural lives no matter where they live. We can expect the first 18 years to be abroad since their parents don’t get citizenship and the US has effectively zero social safety net anyways. What’s the big deal?
1 million per year, not millions, in a country of 325 million (0.3%), for comparison Canada lets in 0.33 million per year in a country of 36 million (almost 1%).
An entire continent, of the youngest countries consisting of liberal democracies being jus soli isn't something you can just wave away and pretend is irrelevant or has some particularly unusual behavior.
Said countries have even laxes immigration policies, similar proportions of immigrant populations, the same anti-immigrant rhetoric that you're spouting, and yet it's just not really the problem that it's made out to be at all.
Wanting control over who comes in and who goes out is not “anti-immigrant rhetoric”, If those countries had sudden surges, you’d see them change, just look at the Venezuela/Colombia border to see how a surge will change opinion anc behavior.
Chile is also cracking down on illegal entries now that they’re more prevalent. No country will have unrestricted immigration, otherwise why not form a union with neighbors?
It’s not false it’s just irrelevant. People are people no matter where they’re from, the US has some of the toughest immigration laws anywhere, immigrants boost the economy and the US is squandering it’s opportunity by letting countries like Canada take in the worlds best and brightest.
I sure have, and Japan believe it or not has no caps or quotas on immigration and just introduced a bunch of measures to make it easier to immigrate. Limiting immigrants is a bad thing and the US could stand to benefit hugely, economically and socially, by laxening the rules.
What does a quota matter when you have other real effective restrictions.
Also, I’m for immigration where we have proven needs. I don’t agree with flooding the market and depressing wages for average workers. PhDs, sure, rare skills, sure.
Or, let’s put it this way, would you be in favor we took Japan’s immigration system part and parcel and implemented it as they have?
Back up. You cite Japan as a strict immigration program (they have no caps, quotas and are actively recruiting foreigners and changing laws to make immigration more attractive), China (a totalitarian ethnostate actively placing a portion of the population in labor camps), South Africa (struggling with the fallout of apartheid) and Korea (I don’t know enough to comment) as your prime examples of tough immigration policy being ... what exactly? I don’t want Japan’s system for America, I want Canada’s - largely merit based, quick, efficient and open to anyone skilled, while still open to refugees and people in need. That’s how economies grow.
All of the these countries have universal healthcare and stronger better labor laws.
I have spent a lot of time in Canada. They have generous social programs and Unions there are doing very well.
The United States puts American workers at a unique disadvantage to immigrants because there isn't much of a social safety net. It ends up a race to the bottom for cheaper disposable labor.
To be fair, it is not tough at all for a "high-skilled" foreigner to work at China by getting a Z-visa - I guess most employees at Bay Area fall into this category.
Indeed - they're pretty lax as countries go and there's other ways as well. Only downside is it's virtually impossible for a foreign citizen to get permanent residency for China, so you'll be renewing that visa every two years for the rest of your life.
> No country will have unrestricted immigration, otherwise why not form a union with neighbors?
See: The European Union
Inb4 "Yeah, but they have immigration control," yes, they do but upon entering and leaving the Schengen; otherwise, it's based on agreements with other countries.
It's why you can travel to Europe for up to 90 days on only a "visitor" visa (which is, really, just an entry stamp).
...but to say that countries don't trust their neighbours have strict border control between themselves (and haven't formed a union with their neighbours) pretty much negates the realities of the Eastern hemisphere.
How so? They don’t get any special benefits, to the best of my knowledge until their adult child sponsors them. The idea of an anchor baby in the us is a complete myth.
What on earth does “got strong” mean? Is it a section of the immigration and nationality act? 18 vs 27 years is just situational, it’s a range. When someone says “leveraging their ward” they mean days/months or a dedicated process not supporting evidence in the standard two to three decade process. And sure, why read evidence I found for you when you have your gut and a single anecdote.
Clearly you have lost track of the argument you have put forth. I decided to countenance your WP article and it seems you can't get illegal immigration outta your head. A sentence in your own article reinforces my statement about H1B workers leveraging their US born kids citizenship for their own citizenship.
You even missed out on the basic fact that I am talking about legal immigration and "anchor baby" is a term used pejoratively in reference to immigrants who have dubious intentions. H1B is for highly skilled workers who have proved their mettle even before immigrating.
And for your kind information, what you call "single anecdote" is called "precedence" in legal terms and carries huge weight in future course of action
“Parents can later leverage the citizenship of their progeny to gain theirs.”
No, they can’t - not in anything resembling a reasonable timeframe. The only benefit they gain is the ability to have their child sponsor them once they are adults. It takes 18 years to become an adult, 1 year to petition for a green card and 5 years to get citizenship for a bare minimum of 24 years. I said 27 because I used 21 years of age to calculate. That’s not a benefit really, taking into account the fact the children have to pay taxes for that whole period while living abroad. Then the child has to want to live in the US, move there and sponsor their parents at their sole discretion.
The idea parents get massive benefits for having a child in the US is an “anchor baby” in colloquial terms, pejorative or not. It applies colloquially to legal and illegal immigrants - and so does the family reunification visa process. The idea of an anchor baby is a myth.
Your single anecdote is not outweighed by facts, it’s not precedent unless it happened in court (the whole immigration process is almost entirely discretionary and capricious, you can be denied or delayed for any reason, and you have almost zero recourse because you as a foreigner have no right to immigrate to the US except by asylum — and no amount of “my parents got in” is going to change the mind of a consular officer or immigration judge). You didn’t read the article I sent you, you bragged about it, and you’re still wrong.
>>You didn’t read the article I sent you, you bragged about it, and you’re still wrong.
I don’t respond to people who make preposterous assumptions about others. Your entire answer is laughable at best and I won’t dignify such mediocrity with my reply.
Jus soli is a civil rights issue. Jus sanguinis has led to many cases of intergenerational oppression. Giving up jus soli would be like giving up the Civil Rights Act.
Jus soli was a hack, applied to force southern states to stop being terrible to former slaves in the wake of the Dredd Scott decision. That doesn’t make it intrinsically a civil rights issue. It makes it a tool used to solve a civil rights issue. The civil rights issue itself can and (IMO) should be solved directly, and be a separate conversation from that of what constitutes nationality.
IMO jus soli doesn’t make sense as your place of birth doesn’t make you intrinsically any more or less of a given nationality. Living somewhere does, being part of a society does, etc. I’d prefer birthright permanent residency for instance - you can claim PR any time, and if you live in the country for 3/5 years you can petition for citizenship like anyone else.
You're not wrong, I think birthright PR would be fine, but I'd be worried about the political viability of statutes. Jus soli has the advantage of being embedded in the constitution so nativist leaders can't just change it. (I don't think the current president would be in favor of what you described either.)
