Why is it a normal practice for countries to grant nationality to someone born within its boundary?

Question

And is there a difference for the status of the child if his/her parents are illegal immigrants? I know every country is different, but I just want to know the general idea why it's an international standard?

Answer 1

It actually isn't the international standard, most countries require some sort of blood ties in order to become a full fledged national. The Lex Soli of the US is one of the exceptions, and applies regardless of the parents' immigration status. Most of the Western Hemisphere operates under a jus soli system, and the UK, Ireland, France, Australia, and New Zealand have a modified form of jus soli that imposes certain conditions in order to obtain citizenship. Most other countries are a Jus Sanguinius, and will only extend citizenship to those with ethnic ties to the country. Germany is one such country (go figure), and many descendants of the Turkish workers who came to Germany post WWII are not full German citizens despite living in Germany for generations.

Answer 2

In the United States it is the perverted interpretation of the 14th Amendment that grants automatic citizenship even though the author of the citizenship clause, Jacob Howard, made it abundantly clear that the mere "accident" of birth was not sufficient to justify citizenship.

During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. Howard said:

[The 14th amendment] WILL NOT, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include very other class of person.
Despite his intention the amendment has since been interpreted to guarantee citizenship to every person born in the United States.

Who made that initial perverted interpretation and when is not clear. What is clear is that the author of the citizenship clause and those that ratified the 14th amendment agreed that the offspring of foreigners or aliens were NOT automatic citizens by accident of birth on US soil.

Answer 3

There are two principals regarding citizenship 1) Jus Soli-right of the territory i.e where you were born and 2) Jus Sangunis-right of the blood i.e. your ethnicity, language, etc... The 14th Amendment was written for freed slaves who had been born in the USA and maybe several generations prior. They had no ties to their mother countries and as cruel as slavery was, it would have been just as cruel to free them only to deport them to an alien country were they could not speak the language and had no ties.

However in the current debate we are not talking about slaves, we are talking about invaders with no wish to assimilate or to become US citizens. They merely come here to take advantage and send BILLIONS of dollars back to their home country. Much like rapist once they have gotten what they want from the victim they leave the victim to suffer.

Answer 4

because you are a citizen of the country you are born in. it doesnt matter what the nationality of the parents are.


Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; Free them from the hand of the wicked.

Psalm 82:3-4



GOD BLESS

Answer 5

I don't think it's an international standard. Only the pushover countries seem to do this.

Answer 6

Most countries don't grant someone citizenship just because you are born there. The U.S. is the exception there.

Answer 7

Well, lets thank the good lord for this or we would not be here. Almost all of us!