Quote:
Originally Posted by MsDemeanor
It's actually kind of interesting. There are two widely recognized methods of determining citizenship - jus soli (right of the soil) and jus sanquinis (right of the blood). In the Americas, jus soli seems to be prevalent. European countries tend to use jus sanquinis, which, to me, makes more sense the goal of preserving national heritage in a region with a lot of little countries with free movement between them. If your parents are Spanish, you're Spanish, even if you're born in France. There's also lex sanquinis, which allows citizenship based on other blood ties. For example, if my great grandparents had my grandmother before they left Ireland, rather than after they arrived in the States, I could get an Irish passport (stomps foot), and the Israeli Law of Return grants the right to citizenship to all Jews.
|
Right...and those make sense to me too. I guess I like taking the broadest possible definition. If your parents are Irish citizens, and you're born here...then I guess I'd like the choice to be yours, and I have no issue with granting dual citizenship or whatever until that choice is made by the people involved.
The interesting part, to me, of the 14th amendment is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." My understanding is that was included because diplomats (for example) might have a child while residing in the US, but that child was not technically born American, because they (the diplomats and their offspring) were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Take that argument to the children of illegal immigrants (which is what these wingnuts are trying to prevent)...are they actually going to argue that the children of illegal immigrants aren't subject to U.S. jurisdiction in the way that diplomats aren't? It's hogwash.