• merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      It’s pretty telling about how much Americans know about other countries that the assumption is that Jus Soli is the norm.

      • neons@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Green: unlimited birthright citizenship Red: Limited birthright Citizenship Gray: (At least from my own country, Switzerland): No birthright citizenship

          • neons@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            recessive? what is recessive about this?

            Your parents can take a citizenship test and you’ll automatically be a citizen as well.

            Just being born here doesn’t make you a citizen. You must at the very least be able to speak the language. Having a citizenship test makes absolute sense.

            Birthright citizenship is an absolutely stupid idea.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 hour ago

              Birthright citizenship is an absolutely stupid idea.

              It’s no more stupid than citizenship by descent. Why should someone get citizenship just because of the citizenship of their parents? Shouldn’t they have to live in the country? Shouldn’t they speak the language? Shouldn’t they go through the country’s school system?

              Europe’s combination of freedom of movement and only Jus Sanguinis has resulted in a situation where there are lots of people with citizenship to a place they’ve never lived, and no citizenship to the place they’ve lived their entire lives.

              Really though, how citizenship should be awarded depends on if it’s an obligation or an opportunity. If a country is at war and drafting all citizens of a certain age, citizenship is an obligation the state puts on its citizens. If a country is at peace and provides a social safety net to all citizens, citizenship is an opportunity for its citizens. If the world were fair, people would be able to choose whether or not they wanted citizenship when they reached adulthood. It shouldn’t be something that happened automatically to children based either on who their parents were or on where their parents were born.

            • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Just being born here doesn’t make you a citizen. You must at the very least be able to speak the language.

              Ummmm are you expecting 2 weeks old infant to speak German?

    • Lumiluz@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Chile would be good. It has a fairly strong passport, which I believe is stronger than the USA one in 2025 (before Trump), since it can still travel to the EU visa free.

    • taiyang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Might I suggest a second good reason for South American countries— when nuclear war hits the US, and it will, the southern hemisphere has a shot of surviving a nuclear winter. Billions will die but mostly in the northern hemisphere, even after accounting for fallout spread.

    • Ofiuco@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      México is on it’s way to fascism so… Might want to check somewhere else

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 hours ago

          They just elected Claudia Sheinbaum, who is seen as being extremely close to the outgoing president AMLO. Some people were suggesting that she was so close to him that it was really his way of getting another term as president, similar to how Putin stepped down as president of Russia to become PM while Dmitry Medvedev became president in name only.

          How true is that? It’s hard to say. My guess is that a lot of it is sexism, thinking that a woman can’t think for herself and a woman president will turn to someone else for the important decisions.

          But, it’s true that under AMLO, there was a lot of democratic backsliding in Mexico. OTOH, Mexico has been dominated by PAN and PRI for decades. In fact, PRI won 14 elections in a row between 1928 and 1994. It wasn’t until Vincente Fox in 2000 that PAN was even a factor. So, there’s a lot of the power structures in Mexico geared towards supporting PRI and PAN.
          They were probably undermining a lot of the things AMLO wanted to accomplish. If he had followed all the rules and norms he might not have been able to accomplish anything because the establishment would have blocked everything he tried to do. That doesn’t excuse his rule and law breaking, but it does contextualize it.

          We’ll see what happens with Sheinbaum. I, for one, am fucking thrilled that Mexico’s president has a PhD in energy engineering. The fact she’s a woman is also historical, but to me the doctorate is more important.