The question wasn’t about expecting people to be born in the country they wish to live, it was about whether citizenship by jus soli should be an option without conditions.
But why should it be an option if you don’t and/or don’t intend to live there?
I don’t see why voting or having political influence in a country you have no commitment to is a good thing. It seems to me that it just makes it easier to abuse the systems in place without having to live with the consequences.
That’s assuming foreign parents who had no intention of staying in a country decided to take the option of granting their child citizenship to that country for no reason. Then, that child lives somewhere that allows dual citizenship. And then, that child, once grown up in a foreign country, who has no commitment or interest in the nation of their birth, goes out of their way to vote and exert political influence on the country to which they have no commitment.
In those few, extremely rare cases are enough to fuck up a nation’s politics, immigration isn’t the problem.
In those few, extremely rare cases are enough to fuck up a nation’s politics, immigration isn’t the problem.
They’re rare, but not impossible, esspecially when it comes to the involvement of powerful/rich governments, corporations or individuals. We already have enough of that, no reason to make it easier for effectively no gain.
Edit: esspecially considering that ability to chose the location your child is born in is based primarily off wealth rather than moral character or anything else positive.
Making immigration more difficult already benefits the wealthy. Not having birthright citizenship won’t change that.
Citizens are already being born without any questions about their character. And voting. And changing politics. Because foreign influence doesn’t come from some kind of sleeper agent citizen who was bred to take down governments, it comes through social media, embargos, lobbying and data harvesting—which is way easier than some kind of Bourne Identity plot.
But it’s become clear you’re arguing in case of a specific worst case scenario that I don’t believe is any more likely when jus soli comes with few or no conditions.
Unkess you have specific data to support jus soli’s direct responsibility for the modern day manipulation by foreign influence, I don’t want to continue this conversation.
But why should it be an option if you don’t and/or don’t intend to live there?
Because it should always be an option? An option is optional, which means you don’t have to use it.
I don’t see why voting or having political influence in a country you have no commitment to is a good thing. It seems to me that it just makes it easier to abuse the systems in place without having to live with the consequences.
That’s assuming foreign parents who had no intention of staying in a country decided to take the option of granting their child citizenship to that country for no reason. Then, that child lives somewhere that allows dual citizenship. And then, that child, once grown up in a foreign country, who has no commitment or interest in the nation of their birth, goes out of their way to vote and exert political influence on the country to which they have no commitment.
In those few, extremely rare cases are enough to fuck up a nation’s politics, immigration isn’t the problem.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/optional
They’re rare, but not impossible, esspecially when it comes to the involvement of powerful/rich governments, corporations or individuals. We already have enough of that, no reason to make it easier for effectively no gain.
Edit: esspecially considering that ability to chose the location your child is born in is based primarily off wealth rather than moral character or anything else positive.
Making immigration more difficult already benefits the wealthy. Not having birthright citizenship won’t change that.
Citizens are already being born without any questions about their character. And voting. And changing politics. Because foreign influence doesn’t come from some kind of sleeper agent citizen who was bred to take down governments, it comes through social media, embargos, lobbying and data harvesting—which is way easier than some kind of Bourne Identity plot.
But it’s become clear you’re arguing in case of a specific worst case scenario that I don’t believe is any more likely when jus soli comes with few or no conditions.
Unkess you have specific data to support jus soli’s direct responsibility for the modern day manipulation by foreign influence, I don’t want to continue this conversation.
Have a good one.