Or more-way?
It seems that as soon as Oklahoma became a state, the legislature passed a law requiring facilities for whites, blacks and Indians. Dunno if it specified who was at the bottom of the totem pole. The report is from a railroad passenger who saw six restrooms in the depot in McAlester in the 1960s.
Did other states do that? Other countries? Do they still?
A book I read recently (historical fiction, but well-researched) noted that in Arizona, Brown vs. Board of Education ended segregation both of blacks and of Hispanics. Well, officially, at least.
AIUI, during apartheid in South Africa, there were four racial groups (and some subgroups within them):
However, a lot of the signs restricting access came down to two groupings: “White” and “Non-White.”
California and later the federal government passed laws against the Chinese and later all Asians. Jim Crow existed in the state and Mexicans were second-class citizens in every way.
Hispanics were discriminated against in the entire Southwest. California had far more Chinese and other Asians than other states so they were visible targets but soft segregation was common wherever “Chinatowns” existed. Native Americans were not allowed citizenship until 1924, a sort of “balance” to that year’s Exclusion Act.
Similar sorting of peoples have existed throughout history and are pervasive in today’s world. Birthright citizenship is not unique to the U.S. but many countries in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere require generations of residence to achieve citizenship. Religious distinctions are meaningful across the Middle East. The Chinese persecute the Uighurs because they are Muslim. The examples are frighteningly endless.
In the last stages of apartheid, between 1983 and 1994, South Africa was even governed by a tricameral parliament, with three parliamentary chambers, one elected each by the white, coloured, and Indian communities. The black community wasn’t represented because their citizenship had been revoked and replaced by the citizenship of a “Bantustan” - a territory that had been declared an independent country, though in fact it was entirely dependent on the South African government. Unsurprisingly, it was, in practice, the white chamber that was calling the shots.
During colonial times, it was common for colonizers to elevate a specific downtrodden ethnic or religious minority in a country they ruled, granting them special rights and privileges - but fewer than the rights and privileges of the actual colonizers themselves, of course - and having them serve as sort of a “middle management” to run the colony. This way, they got themselves a loyal segment of society that was still weak enough to be dependent on them, and if things went bad, it gave the majority a scapegoat to go after. It was a very efficient system. In Rwanda, it was the Tutsi; in Syria, it was the Christians; in Algeria, it was the Jews.
Nowhere in Europe at least ‘requires generations’ it’s just that it’s not automatic. There’s varying mechanisms to apply for citizenship after a period of legal residency, and pretty much everywhere has some kind of rule that you can opt in to local citizenship, often at age 18 if you were born there to at least one parent who was resident legally and you grew up there (Spain technically doesn’t have this, but they also have more options for acquiring citizenship than most).
Generally speaking, if you’re moving to a country in Europe and staying, there will be some mechanism for you get to get citizenship, and even if you don’t kids born there will be able to claim citizenship at some point. If you’re just going temporarily- on holiday or working for a few years before moving home again and you give birth there, the baby mostly doesn’t get citizenship rights.
There’s not a permanent underclass living multiple generations in Europe with no possibility to claim citizenship, there’s the odd person here and there who has maintained their parents’ citizenship instead, either due to not wanting to switch (as some countries don’t allow dual citizenship) or because they didn’t quite meet the requirements, for example they spent too long overseas so didn’t meet the residency requirements.
This is generally true, but there are still countries in Europe that are notoriously reluctant to naturalise immigrants or even extend citizenship to children of immigrants born there. The basic rule of thumb is that the smaller the country, the harder it is to get citizenship; in the microstates (e.g. Monaco, Liechtenstein), it’s close to impossible to get citizenship otherwise than by descent from a local unless you’re somewhat important and know people in the right places to approve your application. (The Vatican is, of course, an entirely different matter).
Switzerland (which is comparatively small but not a microstate) also used to be very restrictive in naturalisations; in some cantons (states) there would be a referendum in your local community where applicants for citizenship would be listed on the ballot by name (!), and voters would decide whether to approve you or not. This practice basically forced you to be friendly with your neighbours and get involved in local sports teams or other activities since otherwise you’d surely be voted down. This practice has been discontinued, but the waiting period for naturalisations is still long in international comparison (ten years, IIRC). Don’t know how restrictive they are with children of immigrants born in the country, though.
There’s many thousands of Roma who would disagree with you.
Those signs were basically the pre-apartheid racist laws. The four way split, White, Black, Coloured, Indian, were needed for the social and geographic parts of Apartheid. You could only live in an area allocated to your race, and attend school according to race etc.
Under Apartheid, movie theaters (for instance) were required to have four sets of bathrooms?
I’m not going to claim that there is widespread discrimination against the Roma in Europe, but do you have a cite that they are excluded from routes to citizenship? Most are citizens of the countries they live in and have been for generations, in my experience.
They were never documented in many of the eastern European countries, and that situation worsened for them when they come to western Europe (often as refugees): Cite Cite Cite Cite Cite and plenty more where those came from. One excerpt, from the first cite:
A significant proportion of Roma people originating from the Balkans and living in Italy are stateless or at risk of statelessness and lack a residence permit and identity documents. As undocumented persons, they have no or limited access to social services, health care, education, employment and housing. They also risk receiving expulsion orders and being detained. An estimated 15,000 Roma children born in Italy find themselves in such a limbo of legal invisibility, even though their families have been living in Italy for decades.
Did you know that, or were you assuming? The situation is, admittedly, way better now than it was even a decade ago, but there are still a substantial amount of Roma who lack documentation. You’re right that the majority have it, especially now (In 2000 it was probably 50/50 or thereabouts), but that still leaves thousands who don’t, and who face real difficulties in changing that.
What I’m saying is - it’s not the “odd person here and there”, it’s an identifiable marginalized group.
Also, I assume you meant isn’t rather than is, in this sentence
Yes, I did say is, meaning isn’t.
Those cites show a few tens of thousands of people who were often undocumented- either due to intentionally not registering births, not keeping documents or because they were not adequately informed- who escaped conflicts in the Balkans in the 1990s and crossed borders without being legally documented, from countries that no longer exist. Because of this, some are unable to prove any citizenship, leaving them effectively stateless. Most of these cites are from around 10 years ago, when this first really became widely talked about as an issue; quite a lot of work has been done since to reduce that.
It’s an issue, but the issue is not refusing citizenship until a family has been there enough generations. It’s partly a situation where many Roma see no benefit to engaging in the bureaucracy of the country they live in, especially if they are undocumented or in situations where cultural laws and country laws differ, potentially leaving them at risk of legal trouble, together with some unwillingness of officials to deal with the group. There is ‘othering’ on both sides, it’s not as simple as a ‘them’ being denied citizenship, it’s a group of largely former undocumented refugees who either don’t have the required knowledge or information or -often justifiably- are unwilling to engage with the system. Some may have been resident for 20 years, but if they can’t provide any proof at all of that, it’s going to be difficult. This is especially likely to be the case for those living a nomadic lifestyle with no record of residency or bills.
In all the countries cited, there is a route to citizenship for the people concerned. The issue is not that there is no route to citizenship, it’s not that simple, nor is it a straightforward case of discrimination, and the numbers of people affected now are so much lower than 10 years back, that the anti-statelessness campaign groups have effectively dropped it as an issue.
There are an estimated 6 million Roma living in Europe; while it’s obviously tricky to estimate numbers of undocumented people, I can’t find any reference to it ever being more than 2% of European Roma affected at the very highest estimate.
It being 2% of a specific minority is what is taking it out of the realm of “just the odd person”. 2% is 2% too many.
And for many of the undocumented, as that cite shows - they may “have a route” to citizenship on paper, but in reality, it’s made hard - I’d say virtually impossible - without NGO aid.