When my MIL came to the USA at the age of 5, she was called a Displaced Person. Although she'd been born in Austria, neither of her parents were Austrian Citizens, and she didn't qualify for automatic citizenship for their home countries (Russia, which her father had fled but wound up in a Gulag anyway, and Czechoslovakia).
I know this is a very big issue in Europe for Romany, people who have lived in countries for generations and yet aren't considered citizens (although they are required to pay taxes etc) and face a huge amount of discrimination.
It seems a pretty clear New World / Old World split. I wonder if it's just a way of dealing with our huge immigrant populations without having to do bucketloads of paperwork.
I think part of it is the whole "us vs. them" thing. English people are English, etc., whereas everybody but the Native Americans was an immigrant to the New World. We (meaning U.S.) have had our bouts of xenophobia with various groups such as the Chinese, Japanese and Irish, but we seem to get past that with time. I think that's one of our greatest strengths as a country.
We still have a bunch of wild-eyed anti-immigrant groups, but they are a minority. They seem to be mostly old white people, all of whose ancestors were immigrants themselves. Just not brown.
Disclosure: I am an old white person, but of a very different mindset.
Now I am wondering how people in the rest of the world gain citizenship. I suppose if you were born in, say, Spain and your parents are citizens, you are a citizen. But how did the "first" citizens get theirs? Was citizenship granted to everyone who happened to be there when the current government was formed? Or were laws about citizenship made fairly recently, to bar immigrants from citizenship?
Gees, there must be hordes of exceptionally pregnant Mexican women trying to cross the border just before they are due to give birth, if this map is accurate. Even the children born of the hundreds of diplomatic families automatically become US citizens? Sounds unlikely to me.
Most countries (including the US) specifically prohibit the children of diplomats from automatically gaining citizenship when they are born in a country to which their parent(s) are accredited. Two of my children were born abroad and the Department of State provided US passports to them within hours of their births.
That map is not accurate. I know babys born in France have French citizenship. It is true for Germany, though. I don't get the principle of being born an Alien. I was. It's hard.
I've read somewhere (but of course forgot where) that there are only three countries in the world where one can be born foreigner.
Not necessarily. You may be referring to babies born to parents who are citizens. I found this at Wikipedia:
"The 1993 Méhaignerie Law required children born in France of foreign parents to request French nationality at adulthood, rather than being automatically accorded citizenship. This "manifestation of will" requirement was subsequently abrogated by the Guigou Law of 1998,[1] but children born in France of foreign parents remain foreign until obtaining legal majority.
Children born in France to tourists or short-term visitors do not acquire French citizenship by virtue of birth in France: residency must be proven...
Children born in France (including overseas territories) to at least one parent who is also born in France automatically acquire French citizenship at birth (double jus soli).
A child born in France to foreign parents may acquire French citizenship..."
According to Wikipedia - "Children born in New Zealand (or on board a ship or aircraft registered in New Zealand) on or after 1 January 2006 will acquire New Zealand citizenship by birth only if at least one parent is a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident (including Australian citizens).
Your wife is presumably an Australian citizen and/or you may be a permanent resident.
So, would the child of the proverbial "exceptionally pregnant Mexican woman" (mentioned above) who visited NZ and gave birth while there be denoted a New Zealand citizen? If so, the map is wrong.
If you wanted to draw any conclusions about the mindset that created this divide, you'd need the context of how long these rules have been in place. In the UK until 1983, birth was enough to give you citizenship, so you can't ascribe much historical meaning to the current situation where your parents need to be British, or residents.
Citizen is a particular economic status in capitalized countries. North American automatically capitalizes upon births (creating huge assets). The rest of the world doesn't play that game yet.
This is interesting to know. So in Norway for instance- do children need to apply for immigrant status or face deportation?
ReplyDeleteHere, let me Google that for you...
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_nationality_law
When my MIL came to the USA at the age of 5, she was called a Displaced Person. Although she'd been born in Austria, neither of her parents were Austrian Citizens, and she didn't qualify for automatic citizenship for their home countries (Russia, which her father had fled but wound up in a Gulag anyway, and Czechoslovakia).
ReplyDeleteI know this is a very big issue in Europe for Romany, people who have lived in countries for generations and yet aren't considered citizens (although they are required to pay taxes etc) and face a huge amount of discrimination.
It seems a pretty clear New World / Old World split. I wonder if it's just a way of dealing with our huge immigrant populations without having to do bucketloads of paperwork.
ReplyDeleteI think part of it is the whole "us vs. them" thing. English people are English, etc., whereas everybody but the Native Americans was an immigrant to the New World. We (meaning U.S.) have had our bouts of xenophobia with various groups such as the Chinese, Japanese and Irish, but we seem to get past that with time. I think that's one of our greatest strengths as a country.
ReplyDeleteWe still have a bunch of wild-eyed anti-immigrant groups, but they are a minority. They seem to be mostly old white people, all of whose ancestors were immigrants themselves. Just not brown.
Disclosure: I am an old white person, but of a very different mindset.
Now I am wondering how people in the rest of the world gain citizenship. I suppose if you were born in, say, Spain and your parents are citizens, you are a citizen. But how did the "first" citizens get theirs? Was citizenship granted to everyone who happened to be there when the current government was formed? Or were laws about citizenship made fairly recently, to bar immigrants from citizenship?
ReplyDeleteI think the wikipedia article on the subject answers when/how question.
Deletehttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_citizenship
Gees, there must be hordes of exceptionally pregnant Mexican women trying to cross the border just before they are due to give birth, if this map is accurate. Even the children born of the hundreds of diplomatic families automatically become US citizens? Sounds unlikely to me.
ReplyDeleteYou could look it up...
DeleteMost countries (including the US) specifically prohibit the children of diplomats from automatically gaining citizenship when they are born in a country to which their parent(s) are accredited. Two of my children were born abroad and the Department of State provided US passports to them within hours of their births.
DeleteThat map is not accurate. I know babys born in France have French citizenship. It is true for Germany, though. I don't get the principle of being born an Alien. I was. It's hard.
ReplyDeleteI've read somewhere (but of course forgot where) that there are only three countries in the world where one can be born foreigner.
Anyhow, that map is wrong.
Not necessarily. You may be referring to babies born to parents who are citizens. I found this at Wikipedia:
Delete"The 1993 Méhaignerie Law required children born in France of foreign parents to request French nationality at adulthood, rather than being automatically accorded citizenship. This "manifestation of will" requirement was subsequently abrogated by the Guigou Law of 1998,[1] but children born in France of foreign parents remain foreign until obtaining legal majority.
Children born in France to tourists or short-term visitors do not acquire French citizenship by virtue of birth in France: residency must be proven...
Children born in France (including overseas territories) to at least one parent who is also born in France automatically acquire French citizenship at birth (double jus soli).
A child born in France to foreign parents may acquire French citizenship..."
More at Wikipedia.
Not true for New Zealand. My children are automatic citizens, Australian mother, British father.
ReplyDeleteThe map is wrong, ipso facto, the map is bad.
According to Wikipedia - "Children born in New Zealand (or on board a ship or aircraft registered in New Zealand) on or after 1 January 2006 will acquire New Zealand citizenship by birth only if at least one parent is a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident (including Australian citizens).
DeleteYour wife is presumably an Australian citizen and/or you may be a permanent resident.
So, would the child of the proverbial "exceptionally pregnant Mexican woman" (mentioned above) who visited NZ and gave birth while there be denoted a New Zealand citizen? If so, the map is wrong.
If you wanted to draw any conclusions about the mindset that created this divide, you'd need the context of how long these rules have been in place. In the UK until 1983, birth was enough to give you citizenship, so you can't ascribe much historical meaning to the current situation where your parents need to be British, or residents.
ReplyDeleteCitizen is a particular economic status in capitalized countries. North American automatically capitalizes upon births (creating huge assets). The rest of the world doesn't play that game yet.
ReplyDelete