The United States is one of only a handful of nations with birthright citizenship, but the Supreme Court may bring the scheme to an end when it rules in Trump v. Barbara.
"Currently, only about 30 nations have adopted birthright citizenship, and most are in the Americas"
Important missing context for this statement: there are 193 countries recognized by the UN, two observer states and about 50 disputed territories (like Taiwan, Somaliland, etc.). Assuming 195 countries, then 30 = 15.38% of countries, or if 245 then it is 12.24%.
Either way, more than six times as many countries do not have it as those that do.
With that said, other countries' laws don't apply in the US.
Your comment reminds me of the way people accuse Israel of being an apartheid country...based on the fact that Israel grants different rights to citizens and non-citizens (sort of like 100% of the other countries in the world).
I don't think enough people in the US are paying attention to this case. The wars in the Middle East, the economy, and every mis-step of the Trump administration garners far more attention. If "legacy media" is covering, their coverage indicates why they are increasingly "legacy".
The key phrase in this important court case is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Of course you are subject to local laws wherever you go. If you jaywalk in Norway or Nicaragua, you are subject to whatever penalties those sovereignties may impose. But does that really cover "jurisdiction" in the broader sense?
Consider this example. I'm born in Honduras. I have a Honduran passport and driver's license. I can vote as a Honduran. If required, I can be drafted into the armed forces and must serve. I am required to pay taxes to the Honduran government as required. I am recognized internationally as a Honduran and any international agreements that govern Hondurans apply to me. I now cross the border into the U.S. Yes, I can be sanctioned for jaywalking, but how on earth am I otherwise subject to jurisdiction of the United States?
The definition of "jurisdiction" from Oxford: "the authority that an official organization has to make legal decisions about someone or something."
The 14th Amendment was written to ensure full rights for former slaves (its proper execution took some time thereafter). Its writers did not anticipate or intend an international free for all. Otherwise they would've just said "born in the U.S.", period. That's why they added "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
"A child born outside the United States may also be a citizen if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen"
My wife was a US citizen when our first child was born in the UK (where I am a citizen). We were told that he could not have US citizenship because we were married. If we had not been married he could have. Sounded crazy to us then and just as crazy now.
Still birthright citizenship for illegal or temporary visitors etc is also bonkers.
"Currently, only about 30 nations have adopted birthright citizenship, and most are in the Americas"
Important missing context for this statement: there are 193 countries recognized by the UN, two observer states and about 50 disputed territories (like Taiwan, Somaliland, etc.). Assuming 195 countries, then 30 = 15.38% of countries, or if 245 then it is 12.24%.
Either way, more than six times as many countries do not have it as those that do.
With that said, other countries' laws don't apply in the US.
Your comment reminds me of the way people accuse Israel of being an apartheid country...based on the fact that Israel grants different rights to citizens and non-citizens (sort of like 100% of the other countries in the world).
I don't think enough people in the US are paying attention to this case. The wars in the Middle East, the economy, and every mis-step of the Trump administration garners far more attention. If "legacy media" is covering, their coverage indicates why they are increasingly "legacy".
The key phrase in this important court case is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Of course you are subject to local laws wherever you go. If you jaywalk in Norway or Nicaragua, you are subject to whatever penalties those sovereignties may impose. But does that really cover "jurisdiction" in the broader sense?
Consider this example. I'm born in Honduras. I have a Honduran passport and driver's license. I can vote as a Honduran. If required, I can be drafted into the armed forces and must serve. I am required to pay taxes to the Honduran government as required. I am recognized internationally as a Honduran and any international agreements that govern Hondurans apply to me. I now cross the border into the U.S. Yes, I can be sanctioned for jaywalking, but how on earth am I otherwise subject to jurisdiction of the United States?
The definition of "jurisdiction" from Oxford: "the authority that an official organization has to make legal decisions about someone or something."
The 14th Amendment was written to ensure full rights for former slaves (its proper execution took some time thereafter). Its writers did not anticipate or intend an international free for all. Otherwise they would've just said "born in the U.S.", period. That's why they added "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
When something is gained so cheaply, it has little or no value. This, in part, contributes to the demise of our culture.
"A child born outside the United States may also be a citizen if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen"
My wife was a US citizen when our first child was born in the UK (where I am a citizen). We were told that he could not have US citizenship because we were married. If we had not been married he could have. Sounded crazy to us then and just as crazy now.
Still birthright citizenship for illegal or temporary visitors etc is also bonkers.