You are factually correct, but missing the larger picture. The fact that the U.S. rejects the archaic European notion of inherited racial citizenship is a fundamental pillar of why we are the superior country. Other countries’ refusal to join us in modernity is, while a true fact about their law, a sign of their backwardness.
I guess I’m just an idiot then, eh?
I honestly appreciate your help, but I’m not talking about merely Jus soli. Dividing the world into Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, is helpful, but not completely reflective in the actual way countries define citizenship. It’s just too simplistic as seen in the Italy case, **Bricker **referred to.
That author hasn’t read, or did not understand, the court’s decision.
And neither have you, I suspect.
Have you?
It’s a sign of their history - and ours. The original jus soli inhabitants of the United States were killed off and marginalized by the arrival of the Europeans. Because almost everyone here, and especially the people with power, is an immigrant, it made sense to base citizenship on physical location rather than background. That doesn’t make our system morally superior.
So far, your posts demonstrate a dramatic lack of understanding of the relevant law. That doesn’t make you an idiot.
You understand that what you quoted does not involve automatic citizenship?
You cut out all the ways Italy grants citizenship automatically, and then included the words “By special application,” and then the words describing how those born and residing in Italy can attain citizenship: that is, by special application. Not automatically.
Do you now understand?
Yes, you’re right it was not nested. My bad. Special application is still relevant to my point.
Well, here’s what you first said:
Now, do you understand that Italy does not follow this rule? Someone born, raised, and living in Italy is not defined as a citizen in Italy. Such a person requires special application to become a citizen of Italy.
Do you agree?
Well, not to be a sycophant, but yes, man.
Christ. Yes, they require a special application. My point is that Italy provides this to people who are born, raised, and living in the country. They do it because they recognize while they are not citizens by blood, they still are citizens of the country under any rational means.
Rejecting the notion of racial superiority and the mystical mumbo-jumbo of “blood and soil” citizenship certainly does make the U.S. morally superior. The fact that the Dominican Republic has previously engaged in genocide based on its lack of a similar system and is currently planning on mass expulsions for the same reason is a handy reminder why.
Alright well then educate me. I would like to read up on a country that denies citizenship to people born and raised in country. I’m not above reading. Just point me in a good direction.
Bricker will find this hard to believe but a person can understand the legal issues and law and GASP disagree with whether it is right or moral.
Countries that only have jus sanguinus citizenship, it doesn’t matter where you are born in these countries only that you have a parent who can transmit. Some further restrict it to only fathers etc.
While this is the law, it isn’t moral.
I don’t know about that, but you obviously can’t understand that your morality is not universally held, nor can it be objectively proven to be better.
Saudi Arabia. Here’s an article about a rumour that this might be changed that turned out to be false.
Who can say whether ethnic cleansing is right or wrong these days, what with all our modern ideas…and products?
It’s truly inspiring to watch American conservatives rush to embrace the superiority of a crackpot third-world country’s policies over the U.S. The anti-immigration obsession really runs deep.
Your ability to be an idiot in 2 threads simultaneously is truly astounding.