You must log in or register to comment.
Typical inaccurate American meme, fucking do better. Jesus fucking Christ.
Do not do this. American passports are the easiest to exchange for another countries citizenship, but one of the hardest to get.
Anyone born to an American citizen is an American citizen, regardless of where it happens. Most foreign countries don’t grant citizenship based on place of birth the way the US does, so if you go to Afroeurasia expecting to get a dual citizenship for your child, it’s likely to fail, but they would still be an American.
They would have to have birth right citizenship for that to work.
Uh, very few countries have birthright only citizenship.
Here’s the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Unrestricted_jus_soli
If I’m counting correctly, 34 countries with unrestricted birthright citizenship, and 40 with restricted.
We don’t recognize birthright citizenship. You’ll have to fill in the paperwork like everyone else.
Is birth citizenship that common? Won’t work here in Germany for example…
None in Europe
Literally zero European countries do it. It seems to be in the Americas only, and Chad and Tanzania. The concept that this is some human right apparently only applies to he US.
Yeah that’s because we had a whole thing of people claiming that people born enslaved weren’t citizens or eligible to vote
I’m curious what the difference between how America went about giving slaves citizenship versus countries in Europe. There’s the obvious difference of birthright that’s an issue today, just curious why America ended up here and Europe did not.
I think at least some countries in Europe had a similar system as the US but moved to Restricted Birthright in the 80s because of freeloading - i.e. well off people with no connection to a country just flying over and having their kids there to give them citizenship in that country.
With Restricted Birthright the parents have to have been living in that country for a few years - so de facto being members of that society - to earn that right.
Personally I think it’s fair that those comitted to participating in a Society all deserve the same rights (including local nationality for their children) independently of themselves having or not the local nationality, whilst those who are not comitted to participating in that Society do not, and “being resident in that country for more than X years” seems to me a pretty neutral and reasonably fair way to determine “comitted to participating in that country’s Society”.
Doesn’t work in most countries. Being stateless isn’t very fun.
US citizenship comes from the mother, if born abroad. The baby would automatically be a US citizen, possibly have dual citizenship.
Most countries don’t have birthright citizenship.
Yes, I’m just saying that the baby of a US woman would not be a stateless person if born in a country that doesn’t have it.
That is technically true, while missing a key fact. Birthright citizenship is the norm for countries in the Western Hemisphere. The vast majority of countries in the Americas have birthright citizenship. The USA is not some rare outlier here.
I don’t think any european country has it…
Most European countries actually do in a limited fashion. Countries that have signed the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness grant automatic citizenship at birth to people that would otherwise be born stateless.
More countries should adopt birthright citizenship. It has a lot of utility to it. It prevents the formation of a multigenerational undocumented underclass and greatly assists in the assimilation of immigrants into the broader culture. It’s simply a fact of life that some immigrants will enter a country illegally. And while it is bad enough that they may live the rest of their lives in hiding, it’s even worse when people are born into that condition. You can end up with generation after generation, people with little to no ties to their “homeland,” living as a permanent underclass because they lack citizenship.
It’s also a protection against some forms of tyranny and oppression. A favorite tool of tyrants is to strip citizenship from their victims. They’ll sometimes go back generations and declare decades-old immigration cases as fraudulent or invalid. Look at the Rohingya genocide, where the Myanmar government declared an entire minority group to be illegal immigrants. Having a hard rule that says, “if you were born here, you have citizenship,” prevents these tactics from being used on anyone except actual immigrants. Tyrants can still target immigrants, but their children are protected.
Jus soli is conditional, and doesn’t include hopping on a plane and just visiting a country, the birthing parents have to have established residence in the country. There’s also citizenship granted to children born to parents who are from whichever country it is.
None of these represent what we see in the US. No country in Europe grants automatic citizenship to children born of foreign parents.
The mother or the father, and it depends on circumstances. The rules are more strict when the father is the US citizen.
If the father is a citizen, the mother is not, and the baby is born outside the US, citizenship does not transfer from father to child.
If the status of the parents is reversed, citizenship does transfer to the child.
Not to be rude, but where did you get that info? It isn’t correct. Doesn’t it sound a little too oversimplified for something like birthright citizenship laws in the US?
I looked into it when people were talking about Ted Cruz being born in Canada. His mother is a US citizen, so he’s actually a birthright citizen.
Here’s the law if you’re interested in learning about it: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3
It’s pretty easy to understand. It depends on a few different things - you can be born to a US mother and not be a citizen, or to a US father and get citizenship through him. It depends on marriage status and there are different residency requirements for different situations. Those requirements are different depending on which parent is the US citizen too.
Hah! Good luck finding one
Which is really only used in the americas. Europe/Asia doesn’t use it, except in specific circumstances where the child wouldn’t be eligible for citizenship elsewhere. But even that is only due to treaties set up to prevent stateless people. If the child would have citizenship elsewhere (like in America), the European/asian country would tell them to apply there instead.
This only works if you go to the green countries:
Edit: Source
It’s pretty telling about how much Americans know about other countries that the assumption is that Jus Soli is the norm.
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.
What if I go to the gray countries? Do I despawn?
Green: unlimited birthright citizenship Red: Limited birthright Citizenship Gray: (At least from my own country, Switzerland): No birthright citizenship
You can’t go there until the next expansion.
They have deathright citizenship. You automatically become a citizen if you die in their territory.
I need to tell my brother to vacation in Uruguay this winter
among latam countries, probably the best one to move to now
Chad it is then.
What a chad move
You got a very loose concept of “nazi”
You are aware I’m talking about birthright citizenship here yes?
I in fact did not.
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.
What a ray of sunshine
That’s what everybody will be saying in the Northern Hemisphere every time there is a break in the nuclear winter cloud cover, only with more feeling of joy (so, more exclamation marks!!!).
Onward to Canada!
I told my wife we’re going on an extended vacation in
KenyaTanzania. She sounds stoked.
Best we can do is free health care
a lot of countries don’t even do that, many countries reserve that for just their citizens.
Imagine US citizens flying abroad to have anchor babies.
And failing at it because most other countries don’t have birthright citizenship 😂
Also airlines won’t let a pregnant woman travel at that point
If a doctor clears you, they can’t deny it.
Sure they can. “My doctor said I can!” Well, they say you can’t. Why would a doctor’s note get you on an airplane?
It would shed the liability from the Airline.
I mean, sure, maybe in the ensuing lawsuit they could be like hey, her doctor said it was cool, but it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a baby being born on an airplane in transit. Nobody wants that, airlines will shut that down, and it’s not discrimination, it’s just a good decision.
Is that true? Sounds kind of discriminatory.
sounds more like they don’t need a medical emergency mid flight aka 10km above the ocean
Certainly you can, but a lot of hurdles to restrictions. And most obgyns won’t approve you if you have any risk factors.
A quick internet search suggests 36 weeks (eight months), which is well into the third trimester, is the most common start of restrictions, and many airlines will accept a doctor’s note the woman is low risk even past that. It was a 2008 election blip when the media got ahold of Sarah Palin flying while in labor because she wanted her special-needs baby delivered by the medical team that had prepared for him, which suggests even the written restrictions in airline policy are not consistently enforced.
Here`s the fun part… you dont need an anker baby to come live in the EU. I think alot of countries here would welcome Americans who had enough of Trump
Don’t choose Germany, though, we (and a lot of nations, actually) still for some reason have citizenship-by-blood/heritage laws more or less straight out of the 19th century, not citizenship-by-birthplace laws.
As a German myself I would like to here some arguments why citizen by the place you happen to be at birth is better?
Both jus soli (citizenship by birth) and jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood) exist more for historical reasons than because one is better than the other. Both are simply a way to try and make citizenship a more clear-cut thing, because it’s as close to being a made-up thing as you can get, especially in cases such as parents having a different nationality to the child (which is even more confusing when both parents are of different nationalities).
Jus soli is more common in the Americas due to various factors, including an incentive towards immigration from richer countries during colonial times and the various movements towards emancipation of the enslaved peoples a few centuries later, but the fact remains that neither system is any more arbitrary than the other. Jus soli is often favored because it simplifies things like immigration and asylum seeking and reduces statelessness, which is still a significant issue that affects millions of people worldwide, mostly around war-torn areas.
As mentioned in another response, enfranchisement is also a very important issue that jus soli resolves, although a significant part of it is also due to other, unrelated citizenship laws that may not necessarily conflict with jus sanguinis.
The paper trail of blood citizenship would be a lot easier to lose.
Why would citizenship be based on where your parents are from?
My parents of different nationalities had me in a third country. It would be really really shit for them (and me) if I didn’t share their nationality. They would have had a foreign child, who would almost always go for a citizenship as soon as possible anyway.
Much easier to just give the kid a passport if their parents have one.
And since I was born in a country that DOES have birthplace citizenship, I technically have three nationalities (only two passports though, way too much work to get the third one)
Dual ctizenship. Have both. Let the kid be of two nations.
Basically: Resident enfranchisement. It’s weird, when people born in our country and having lived here their whole life can’t vote outside of local elections. My own father, for example, had a Dutch background, and was never allowed to vote in federal elections until his death. (Neither he nor I even spoke/speak a single phrase of Dutch)
Yes, things have gotten somewhat better and easier with applications for citizenship, but that there are hurdles like that to begin with, is a bit… weird.
Yeah, the way things work in Norway and I expect in most other European countries is that you don’t get a citizenship for just being born here, but if you’re born and raised here, then by the time you’re of school age you’d have lived here long enough to become a citizen, and unless your parents isolated you, you shouldn’t have any problems with language requirements.
Basically the system here is “stay here for long enough and make a bit of effort for integration and sure you can become a citizen”.
Of course, the far right loves to portray this as “unrestricted immigration” and make it harder for people to do that, or even live normally, get education and services for their kids, etc. And then complain when the result is people who feel that the system isn’t working for them, or who have trouble because they’re uneducated and poorly integrated anywhere.
That’s fine and is what most European countries have. What they have is minimum levels to say that a parent is resident (e.g. over a couple of years of a legal status). This is to avoid pregnant women doing exactly what the OP suggests. Make journeys last minute just to get their child a different nationality.
Citizenship by blood can be discriminating to children of immigrants. Say, you’re born in USA and spent all your life in there, would be spit on the face not considering you as a citizen
And where do you draw the line anyway? Especially in North America, only first Nations could be citizens?
Deal
No European country has unrestricted jus soli for nationality. Ireland was the last one to restrict nationality by-soil to children of long term legal residents, which is the same as Germany.
I wish. My ancestors moved to the US from Germany in the 19th or early 20th century, but I’m pretty sure I’m not eligible for German citizenship.
Why would you be?
Because their family has lived in Germany for a hundred years and they have no link to another place in living memory?
Most US-american families haven’t lived in the US for 100s of years, but they’re still US-americans, not Irish, Spanish, German etc.
Because that’s what true “citizenship-by-blood/heritage laws more or less straight out of the 19th century” would imply.
In 2025 they just mean “if either of your parents was a citizen when you were born, you can be too”
No European country has it. And no neither of those laws are more specifically “19th century” than the other, considering they are both much much older than that. Perhaps you should read up on history for a bit before making uninformed blanket statements like that?
Ireland: Proof of residency for 3 out of the last 4 years before the child gets an Irish passport. It’s enough to present utility bills or paychecks for that period. I did it, and my kids only have Irish passports (even though they’d be entitled to both) until they are old enough to make their own decision in this matter. Or Trump decides to expand his golf course to the entire island.
