Yeah, I always thought that was neat since it’s mostly a happy accident from needing to allow freed slaves citizenship. I much prefer that over some sort of bloodline metric.
interesting numbers, but consider this: Most countries have existed since before written time, evolving into what they are now. Only a few countries have grown entirely based on immigration, Australia, New Zealand, and America among them.
It makes sense that a country that has a culture going back centuries, or even millennia, would base citizenship on descent. Even America does that, but we also recognized that we needed immigration to grow, and fill, our country, and Birthright Citizenship fills that need.
That’s why there are a lot more descent-based citizenship countries, than Birthright Citizenship countries. It’s not because it’s a better or worse idea, it just depends on what works for the historical culture of the individual countries.
They aren’t exactly the same politically as they were in the “olden days,” but they are the same “people,” whose culture has evolved.
For instance, modern Italians are the descendants of Romans. They are the same people, even if their governmental system.has changed (and it has changed often in Italy).
But countries like America or Australia aren’t populated by the same people from long ago. The original indigenous inhabitants didn’t become the primary population like they did in Italy, or England, or France, or Ukraine. We grew because boatloads of people came here from all over the world, and settled here.
Modern Italians, British, French, etc. have always been there, modern Americans haven’t. We didn’t come from here, we came from everywhere else.
They’re not at all the same people. We don’t really have strong evidence of writing from the Nuragic civilisation, but the Etruscans left plenty of written evidence and their language was probably not even Indo European.
Then there were invasions by the Gauls and the Latins, who built the Roman Empire, but they were taken over by Germanic peoples, who partially integrated. Waves and waves of people speaking different languages, with different religions and customs.
You say that modern English have always been there, but again, after the Celts got taken over by the Romans, there was a long period of Roman rule, with a lot of cultural and ethnic mixing. Then came the Saxons, again a people with completely different language and customs. This was a large mixing of populations and a huge shift in culture. Then there was an invasion of Vikings that was so significant that a huge part of east England was called the Danelaw, because it was under Danish control. You still see that in place names and surnames. Then in 1066 the Norman French came, again massively changing the culture, the language and the political structures.
It’s the same story all over Europe. Wave after wave of invasion, displacement and cultural shift and mixing.
Only a few countries have grown entirely based on immigration, Australia, New Zealand, and America among them.
I know what you mean by this, but just a fun fact I want to crowbar in:
Humans settled in Australia around 50-60,000 years ago, North America around 20,000 years ago, but when the East-Polynesians (who would become the Māori) settled in New Zealand, Oxford University was already 200 years old.
Right, these new worlds weren’t empty of humans, and I’ve addressed this in other posts. The difference is that those indigenous cultures never evolved far enough to be able to resist the onslaught of the far more technological alien invaders, so their cultures basically ended, and were replaced by the melting pot cultures that came after. A lot of it wasn’t even due to advanced technologies like swords and armor and guns. Pathogens probably did at least half the work for the invaders.
Frankly, that same thing probably happened all over the planet, but it happened so far back that we don’t know about it. The conquering of the Americas and the Pacific nations, happened within our written history, so we’re aware of it, but the earliest indigenous populations probably suffered the same fate.
For instance, millennia ago, Modern Humans and Meanderthals co-existed, with Neanderthals being the older, and presumably indigenous culture, but Modern Humans eventually prevailed. Just knowing human nature as is we all do, it is doubtful that the Neanderthals simply died out quietly. At least in some places, they were almost certainly exterminated. People have been people for as long as there have been people, so it’s a pretty safe bet that at some stage, someone pointed to those people with the heavy brow-ridges, and invented a reason for murdering ALL of them.
After that, civilizations evolved, and isolated by lack of travel options, established their own local/regional cultures that were passed down to create the nations we have today.
America, Australia, etc. are following the same basic path as those ancient civilizations, we’re just here to witness this one, but ancient civilizations were probably just as genocidal in establishing their own cultures, if not worse.
You understand that modern Italians and Romans are the same people, right? That modern British, and early Britons are the same people? That modern Scandinavians and Vikings are the same people? That modern French, and the Gauls were the same people? That modern Egyptians, and those that built the pyramids are the same people? That modern Greeks and ancient Greeks are the same people? Modern Chinese and ancient Chinese are the same people? Same with Japanese, Korean, African, Russians, Turkish, etc.
They have all occupied the same territory as their ancestors, they look the same, speak the same, eat the same, listen to the same music, etc. Their societies/civilizations may have evolved over millennia, as did their political systems, but they are still the same PEOPLE, with the same CULTURE.
But the Western Hemisphere, and a few islands like Australia and New Zealand, were basically empty, except for an indigenous population, who simply weren’t prepared for an invasion by a technologically advanced race of aliens from what might as well be Outer Space.
The indigenous occupants were quickly overrun, aided partially by alien pathogens, and then occupied by immigrants from all over the globe. These cultures do not resemble any single culture, like the world was accustomed to, they became a blend, and the world had to become accustomed to a new kind of national culture.
Americans aren’t Purebreds, we’re Mutts. A nation like ours can’t base their citizenship solely on descent from a long established culture, we are too young for that to properly sustain a nation for millennia into the future. We require new blood from elsewhere to keep it growing.
Mutts are often known for being hardy because they carry the positive traits of their varied ancestors. That’s our strength, and immigration has given us that strength. MAGA wants us to reduce to a single purebred strain of human, which would eventually lead us to becoming a nation of incestuous inbreds like the Hapsburgs or the Pharonic Egyptians.
MAGA would probably love fucking their siblings, the weirdos.
Just like how you are able to obtain citizenship in the US without being born in the US, you are also able to obtain citizenship in a coutries with descent-based citizenship without your parents being citizens of that country.
A descent-based system would also have worked in the US. Immigrants who want to become citizens need to apply for citizenship under both systems.
FYI: About 35 countries have birthright citizenship, mostly on the American continent. Over 150 countries have citizenship by descent.
Yeah, I always thought that was neat since it’s mostly a happy accident from needing to allow freed slaves citizenship. I much prefer that over some sort of bloodline metric.
I think you found the root of why the GOP hate it.
interesting numbers, but consider this: Most countries have existed since before written time, evolving into what they are now. Only a few countries have grown entirely based on immigration, Australia, New Zealand, and America among them.
It makes sense that a country that has a culture going back centuries, or even millennia, would base citizenship on descent. Even America does that, but we also recognized that we needed immigration to grow, and fill, our country, and Birthright Citizenship fills that need.
That’s why there are a lot more descent-based citizenship countries, than Birthright Citizenship countries. It’s not because it’s a better or worse idea, it just depends on what works for the historical culture of the individual countries.
I can’t see a sense in which this is true.
Before written time, none of the countries of Europe or Asia or Africa existed in anything remotely close to their current identity.
They aren’t exactly the same politically as they were in the “olden days,” but they are the same “people,” whose culture has evolved.
For instance, modern Italians are the descendants of Romans. They are the same people, even if their governmental system.has changed (and it has changed often in Italy).
But countries like America or Australia aren’t populated by the same people from long ago. The original indigenous inhabitants didn’t become the primary population like they did in Italy, or England, or France, or Ukraine. We grew because boatloads of people came here from all over the world, and settled here.
Modern Italians, British, French, etc. have always been there, modern Americans haven’t. We didn’t come from here, we came from everywhere else.
They’re not at all the same people. We don’t really have strong evidence of writing from the Nuragic civilisation, but the Etruscans left plenty of written evidence and their language was probably not even Indo European. Then there were invasions by the Gauls and the Latins, who built the Roman Empire, but they were taken over by Germanic peoples, who partially integrated. Waves and waves of people speaking different languages, with different religions and customs.
You say that modern English have always been there, but again, after the Celts got taken over by the Romans, there was a long period of Roman rule, with a lot of cultural and ethnic mixing. Then came the Saxons, again a people with completely different language and customs. This was a large mixing of populations and a huge shift in culture. Then there was an invasion of Vikings that was so significant that a huge part of east England was called the Danelaw, because it was under Danish control. You still see that in place names and surnames. Then in 1066 the Norman French came, again massively changing the culture, the language and the political structures.
It’s the same story all over Europe. Wave after wave of invasion, displacement and cultural shift and mixing.
I know what you mean by this, but just a fun fact I want to crowbar in: Humans settled in Australia around 50-60,000 years ago, North America around 20,000 years ago, but when the East-Polynesians (who would become the Māori) settled in New Zealand, Oxford University was already 200 years old.
Right, these new worlds weren’t empty of humans, and I’ve addressed this in other posts. The difference is that those indigenous cultures never evolved far enough to be able to resist the onslaught of the far more technological alien invaders, so their cultures basically ended, and were replaced by the melting pot cultures that came after. A lot of it wasn’t even due to advanced technologies like swords and armor and guns. Pathogens probably did at least half the work for the invaders.
Frankly, that same thing probably happened all over the planet, but it happened so far back that we don’t know about it. The conquering of the Americas and the Pacific nations, happened within our written history, so we’re aware of it, but the earliest indigenous populations probably suffered the same fate.
For instance, millennia ago, Modern Humans and Meanderthals co-existed, with Neanderthals being the older, and presumably indigenous culture, but Modern Humans eventually prevailed. Just knowing human nature as is we all do, it is doubtful that the Neanderthals simply died out quietly. At least in some places, they were almost certainly exterminated. People have been people for as long as there have been people, so it’s a pretty safe bet that at some stage, someone pointed to those people with the heavy brow-ridges, and invented a reason for murdering ALL of them.
After that, civilizations evolved, and isolated by lack of travel options, established their own local/regional cultures that were passed down to create the nations we have today.
America, Australia, etc. are following the same basic path as those ancient civilizations, we’re just here to witness this one, but ancient civilizations were probably just as genocidal in establishing their own cultures, if not worse.
Uh, no to most countries existed before written word. Really? Political entities or nation states, primarily after writing? Still no.
You understand that modern Italians and Romans are the same people, right? That modern British, and early Britons are the same people? That modern Scandinavians and Vikings are the same people? That modern French, and the Gauls were the same people? That modern Egyptians, and those that built the pyramids are the same people? That modern Greeks and ancient Greeks are the same people? Modern Chinese and ancient Chinese are the same people? Same with Japanese, Korean, African, Russians, Turkish, etc.
They have all occupied the same territory as their ancestors, they look the same, speak the same, eat the same, listen to the same music, etc. Their societies/civilizations may have evolved over millennia, as did their political systems, but they are still the same PEOPLE, with the same CULTURE.
But the Western Hemisphere, and a few islands like Australia and New Zealand, were basically empty, except for an indigenous population, who simply weren’t prepared for an invasion by a technologically advanced race of aliens from what might as well be Outer Space.
The indigenous occupants were quickly overrun, aided partially by alien pathogens, and then occupied by immigrants from all over the globe. These cultures do not resemble any single culture, like the world was accustomed to, they became a blend, and the world had to become accustomed to a new kind of national culture.
Americans aren’t Purebreds, we’re Mutts. A nation like ours can’t base their citizenship solely on descent from a long established culture, we are too young for that to properly sustain a nation for millennia into the future. We require new blood from elsewhere to keep it growing.
Mutts are often known for being hardy because they carry the positive traits of their varied ancestors. That’s our strength, and immigration has given us that strength. MAGA wants us to reduce to a single purebred strain of human, which would eventually lead us to becoming a nation of incestuous inbreds like the Hapsburgs or the Pharonic Egyptians.
MAGA would probably love fucking their siblings, the weirdos.
Just like how you are able to obtain citizenship in the US without being born in the US, you are also able to obtain citizenship in a coutries with descent-based citizenship without your parents being citizens of that country.
A descent-based system would also have worked in the US. Immigrants who want to become citizens need to apply for citizenship under both systems.