|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Application of "Jus Soli" to legal and illegal immigrants
- 2 Today's...?
- 3 Embassies
- 4 Lex soli?
- 5 First principles
- 6 Abolition of Jus Soli?
- 7 France not a Jus Soli nation
- 8 POV
- 9 deportations
- 10 Unclear statement
- 11 Who is observing jus soli?
- 12 Right of the soil
- 13 Rename jus soli -> birthright citizenship
- 14 Blurred lines between jus soli and jus sanguinis
- 15 Every-day plebiscites
- 16 Plyler v. Doe
- 17 McDonald Quote on Raoul Berger - Necessary?
- 18 Native American citizenship in the US
- 19 Citizenship "based on word"?
- 20 History section - major problems
- 21 Modification of jus soli
- 22 Restricted jus soli: Portugal
Application of "Jus Soli" to legal and illegal immigrants
Jus Soli does not solely apply to illegal immigration. There are nations such as Germany which in the past denied jus soli to the children of legal immigrants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voss749 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
"However, today's increase of migrants has somewhat blurred the lines between these two antagonistic sources of right." Should this article sound like a college student wrote it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaghettiHat (talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC) SpaghettiHat (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought that embassies were considered territory of the state whose embassy it is (rather than of that in which it is physically) for all purposes, which would make this "exception" just another manifestation of this rule. --Random|832 15:38, 2005 August 19 (UTC)
- Yes, but how many child are born inside the actual embassy as oppose to in a hospital close to the embassy or consul? -- KTC 03:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
What is the source for the lex soli claim? I haven't heard of this legal term. I tried looking it up on the internet and everything points back to WP. Can someone explain difference b/t Jus soli and Lex soli? Rhallanger 04:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
"Jus" is a general term and means "right". "Lex" refers to a specific legislative act and means "law". I hope that helps.
--Silvano 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It does exist, it stems from the Latin. The article referred to it as 'right of the soil' this is so far off its ridiculous and its been followed like a bad meme since on other sites who don't know that soli means sun. While sun is clearly more metaphorical, its just the way the phrase developed, you either have citizenship by blood 'jus sanguinis' / or based on the place where you were born (figuratively where the sun is shining, though obviously not LITERALLY where it is currently shining because that would be half the world) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cw1865 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
This whole article could do with clarification. I feel it relies on having a general knowledge of Latin and a specific knowledge of how the two systems came into being. Most readers, I feel, would benefit from having the difference explained before a detailed explanation of the Jus soli.188.8.131.52 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Abolition of Jus Soli?
A number of countries have abolished rules which granted automatic citizenship to children born in the country:
- United Kingdom : 1 January 1983
- Australia : 20 August 1986
- Republic of Ireland : 1 January 2005
- New Zealand : 1 January 2006
However these countries have not moved to Jus sanguinis as they do not require the parent to be a citizen of the country in order for a child born in the country to be a citizen. Instead it is enough for the parent to be a permanent resident of the country in question, or a long term legal resident in the case of the Republic of Ireland.
On this basis it's more accurate to state that these countries have modified Jus Soli rather than abolished it. JAJ 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Although most legal experts in the USA probably do agree that jus soli citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and could be modified only through a constitutional amendment, a small but vocal minority reject this claim and believe such changes could be accomplished by Congressional legislation. A handful of bills along such lines are routinely introduced in Congress, though none have ever gotten anywhere. Some opponents of jus soli in the USA apparently hope to provoke the Supreme Court to repudiate its 1898 ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case, which held that the 14th Amendment required US-born children of foreigners to be treated as citizens. Richwales 17:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Though the map shows Romania as a country embracing Jus Soli, the text does not. Please clarify.
- See Romanian nationality law, which links to the text of the 1991 nationality law; Romanian citizenship is granted to a) children born from Romanian citizens on Romanian territory, b) children born from one Romanian parent on Romanian territory, c) children born abroad to one or two Romanian parents, d) a child found on Romanian territory if the parents are unknown. The law says nothing of children born to non-Romanians on Romanian territory, thus not qualifying for jus soli. NumbersUSA is wrong on this count. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Fiji does not grant citizenship if neither parent is a citizen of Fiji therefore it does not qualify as jus soli: Chapter 3 Citizenship ... Section 10 Citizenship by birth Every child born in Fiji on or after the date of commencement of this Constitution becomes a citizen at the date of birth unless, at the date of birth: (a) a parent of the child has the diplomatic immunity accorded to envoys of foreign sovereign powers accredited to Fiji; and (b) neither parent is a citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
France not a Jus Soli nation
Although French nationality law is influenced by Jus soli principles, birth in France is not enough in itself to confer automatic French citizenship at birth. France is therefore not a pure Jus soli nation, rather is operates modified Jus soli principles, as the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand have all done. JAJ 15:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The word abuse just smacks of POV. Is anyone willing to correct it before I do? — D. Wo. 12:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- Better? Kill the NPOV banner if there's no other objects. -AndyBQ 00:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the section "Deportations", which was unsourced and confusing. It is inaccurate to say that a country "ignores" jus soli when it deports the noncitizen parent of a child born in its territory. --Mathew5000 17:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The text says:
- Modification of jus soli has been criticized as contributing to the growing global problem of statelessness, along with the creation of social underclasses and various legal challenges in countries like Australia. For example, in Australia, children must wait ten years before they are considered equal in the eyes of the law to their peers.
It isn't clear what children are being referred to (and therefore when the ten years begins) or in what respect they are not considered equal in the eyes of the law to their peers. Does anyone have an idea what was meant here? Ondewelle (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Who is observing jus soli?
On 14 June 2008 the user 220.127.116.11 did remove the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic from the list containing "territories and countries that observe jus soli".
- Sorry, not a country!, the user argued.
I'll change the wording of the prelude to the list from "Territories and countries that observe jus soli include" to "States and territories that observe jus soli include". Then I'll reinstate the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic on the list.
The Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, PMR, is a secessionist state and breakaway republic from the Republic of Moldova. PMR has unilaterally declared it's independence without consent from Moldova.
Secessionist states with unilaterally declared independence are:
- Republic of Kosovo (from Serbia)
- Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (from Republic of Moldova).
- Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (from the Republic of Cyprus)
- Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (from Azerbaijan)
- Abkhazia (from Georgia)
- South Ossetia (from Georgia)
- Taiwan (from the People's Republic of China)
- Republic of Somaliland (from Somalia).
The secessionist states of above have their own national territories, citizenries, laws and authoraties. And they're exercising control over the territories of their states.
A secessionist state is observing jus soli if constituition and/or citizenship laws of said state are written accordingly. kafukafu, 15 June 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 11:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed American Samoa, TRNC, and Transdniestria, because in the context of jus soli the concept of nationality is closely tied with public international law. A state must first have sovereignty over its territory, and nationality involves recognition of a state's citizenry. TRNC and Transdniestria can hardly have the authority to grant true nationality based on jus soli. American Samoa is part of the USA for this purpose, and I noted that Guam, CNMI, USVI and Puerto Rico are not included. Kraikk (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Right of the soil
"Jus soli" means "right of the soil". This "right of the sun" thing is a stupidity the likes of which I've rarely seen on Wikipedia. First of all, "sol, solis" is 3rd declension and obviously has a genitive in "-is". Secondly, it makes absolutely no sense, because
Rename jus soli -> birthright citizenship
Blurred lines between jus soli and jus sanguinis
I removed a portion claiming
[There is a trend in some countries toward restricting lex soli by requiring] ".... or that the child be a foundling found on the territory of the state in question (e.g.,see subparagraph (f) of 8 U.S.C. § 1401). The primary reason for imposing this requirement is to limit or prevent people from travelling to a country with the specific intent of gaining citizenship for a child."
Clearly this is not true in the example and no country would require all its citizens by birth to be foundlings. The US law cited simply allows for the presumption of native birth if the found child is under 5 until evidence shows otherwise. I think the originator misread or didn't express this clearly. The second sentence was unsupported and frankly I think pretty clearly untrue. PantsB (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with some others that this article is overly abstruse. What, for example, does "an every-day plebiscite of one's appartenance to his Fatherland" mean? The word "appartenance" is in no English dictionary I consulted. And the use of the word "plebiscite" seems beyond metaphorical. Torontonian1 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Plyler v. Doe
I am removing the following paragraph, as it's relevance seems to be low.
"Additional doubts about the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment were fueled by the Supreme Court's decision in Plyler v. Doe, which held that “the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter.” But the Plyler Court did not address the citizenship clause in the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, but addressed instead the equal protection clause at the end of the second sentence. Because many readers do not notice that Plyler addressed, without analysis or history, the meaning of "within its jurisdiction", not the very different phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," casual readers misunderstand the meaning of Plyler. Some careful readers have purposefully fostered this misunderstanding."
If, as the writer asserts, the decision in Plyler v. Doe was not relevant to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, why mention it here? Moreover, nothing that is stated would throw any doubt on the scope of the 14th Amendment; if anything, the decision would tend to affirm it. The use of the word "additional" would imply that other doubts were mentioned previously, but the preceding paragraphs do not contain any. And the last 2 sentences really look like Birther editorializing.Gmalcolms (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
McDonald Quote on Raoul Berger - Necessary?
Second to last paragraph under Specific National Legislation - United States.
It's not entirely clear what this quote adds. It is frightfully lacking in the level of justification that it provides, amounting only to "this guy with an important-sounding title" says that past interpretations of the 14th amendment are wrong. What evidence did Berger use to justify his conclusions?
Even if it is intended to explain why some legislators find the repeal of jus soli acceptable, the fact that "it was not a tradition when initially interpreted" is not an independent justification for revocation; it is only a partial response to the argument against repeal that jus soli has been a part of American culture for more than a century. Which, by the way, is still true, even if its origins are seedier than most Americans today might believe.
As it stands, it explains nothing, and is also inexplicit about what the implications of this finding are supposed to be. That jus soli is a bad policy? That it is not constitutionally protected? That it should be repealed because it has perverse origins?
Instead, it comes off as righteous indignation intent on picking out perceived "problems" with jus soli, even if they have no real effects on what jus soli is today.
Also, on a more technical point, there is a rather blatant - and immature - appeal to authority in listing the full title of Raoul Berger's chair, made even more inappropriate by the fact that the author of the quotation is Forrest McDonald, not Berger, holder of the title in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Native American citizenship in the US
Currently the article's United States section states, in regards to Native Americans and citizenship:
The verbiage is misleading and I'm explaining here rather than in the edit summary.
The 1924 act was explicitly passed to guarantee citizenship. In 1968 the ICRA obliged tribal legal systems - which are largely independent of the US judiciary - to extend most (but not all) of the civil rights and legal protections in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights to tribal members in tribal jurisdictions. I suspect the phrase "realized in 1968" is lifted from the citation text and was in reference to the fact that Native Americans, as US citizens, were now guaranteed (mostly) the same basic legal rights while on tribal lands as they were elsewhere in the US. To be clear, the ICRA (25 U.S.C. 1301) does not address citizenship. (Please see the WP articles and their sources for more detail.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Citizenship "based on word"?
- I've removed what seems to be an artifact of a prior edit. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
History section - major problems
There are major problems with this section.
1. There is a strange leap from ancient Rome to the late 18th century.
2. There is the statement: "But it was much later, when the independence of the English colonies in America, and the French Revolution, laid the foundations for jus soli ..." This misleadingly suggests that jus soli is a late 18th century innovation, but that is simply not accurate. England and Scotland, for example, had practised it since the Middle Ages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law#Early_English_and_British_nationality_law
There may well have been other countries that also practised jus soli and one cannot but wonder whether the American colonies (later the U.S.) continued English law (in a modified form) in this respect.
3. There is a paragraph contrasting the ideas of Fichte and Renan and on nationality. However, these men were concerned with concepts of nationhood in an abstract sense, with matters such as "what constitutes a nation?" and not with nationality as a legal concept. If Fichte's definition later became a signifcant influence on German nationality law, the implication of this is that previously the German states, or at least some of them, operated with something other than jus sanguinis. Incidentally, when did if first become possible to be a German citizen without being a citizen of one of the German states? As late as 1933 German passports gave details of the (German) state of which the bearer was a citizen. (This area could do with attention from an expert). Norvo (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Modification of jus soli
It is stated under the section: Modification of Jus Solis
- Dominican Republic: The constitution was amended on 26 January 2010 to exclude most Dominicans of Haitian origin from citizenship, even those previously recognized by the Dominican state. The new constitution broadened the definition of the 2004 migration law to exclude individuals that were "in transit" to include "non-residents" (including individuals with expired residency visas and undocumented workers).
Reason to oppose this statement:
It is given as fact that racial discrimination and exclusion of haitian citizens cite: " to exclude most Dominicans of Haitian origin from citizenship, even those previously recognized by the Dominican state" were the main cause of the modification of the Constitution. In October 2013, the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic ruled about how citizenship is obtained in the Dominican Republic http://tribunalconstitucional.gob.do/node/1764  and also the current Constitution (Article 18, numeral 2) defines Dominicans as:
2) Whoever holds Dominican Nationality before the application of this Constitution http://www.procuraduria.gov.do/Novedades/PGR-535.pdf  .
These documents demonstrates that the current information provided by wikileaks is mere speculative and does not correspond to the truth.
I suggest starting a discussion where the current statement provided by wikipedia can be noted as: Accusations by NGO's and other Humans rights activist. Also, it is necessary to cite the Constitution and its mandates which clearly protect the rights of all current Citizens no matter their origin.
No rationalization has been made to confront my argument of false information provided by the statement of supposed racial discrimination. I will delete the statement in 2 weeks from now if failed to response to my opposition.
Restricted jus soli: Portugal
1 – Portuguese by origin are:
e) The persons born in Portuguese territory to foreign parents who are not serving their respective State, if they declare that they want to be Portuguese and provided that one of the parents has legally resided in Portugal for at least five years at the time of birth;
It is WP:OR for WP editors to interpret a primary source but, in the absence of a cited secondary source which does that interpretation, two of us have done that here -- and we've interpreted it differently. Here, their clearly refers to the parents, and they clearly refers to persons who "declare that they want to be Portuguese". I don't envision they as referring to parents who declare that they want to be Portuguese but, rather, as referring to "persons born in Portuguese territory to foreign parents .." upon their return to Portugal some years after their birth who then declare that they want to be Portuguese. Either interpretation seems a bit of a stretch. Other opinions might be helpful. Relevant secondary sources would be really helpful. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- Human Rights Brief: "The Constitution and the Right to Nationality in the Dominican Republic" October 29, 2010
- Soros.org: "Deprivation of Citizenship for Dominicans of Haitian Descent" retrieved October 22, 2011
- Huffington Post: "Dominican Republic To End Citizenship Of Those Whose Parents Entered Illegally" By EZEQUIEL ABIU LOPEZ and DANICA COTO September 27, 2013
- http://tribunalconstitucional.gob.do/node/1764. Missing or empty
- "Political Constitution of the Dominican Republic" (PDF) (in Spanish). 2010. pp. 5–6.