Talk:Jus sanguinis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See /Wilson Letter for previous content.

Contents

[edit] Israel's lex soli

Israel has a lex soli. But it doesn't provide jus soli to Palestinian refugees. This is relevant to the discussion of Israel's special case in the previous sentence. —Ashley Y 02:43, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)


Making the statement that Israel's lex soli does not provide jus soli to Palestinian Refugees, within an article that is not related to Israel or to the Palestinians is not maintining NPOV.

Israel's lex soli grants Israeli nationality based on birth in Israel only if at least one of the parents is an Israeli citizen. But this requirement applies to everyone, not just Palestinian Refugees. If a child were born in Israel to Japanese parents he would not be an Israeli citizen either. So, if that sentence had to be included, it should simply say that Israel's lex soli does not provide jus soli unless at least one of the parents is an Israeli citizen.

Additionally, "many" other countries that have lex soli also have requirements that a parent have citizenship (or sometimes legal permanent resident status) in order for a child born in that country's territory to receive citizenship. Britain and Australia are only two such countries that have additional requirements to confer citizenship when born in their territory. Ireland and New Zealand are in the process of modifying their nationality laws to restrict jus soli. So, this type of requirement is hardly unique to Israel.

Both the reference to the Palestinian Refugees and the previous one about Zionism and Racism don't belong in a general article about jus sanguinis.

Steggall 04:52, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

It sounds like Israel doesn't have a lex soli as such but a kind of combination law (in addition to the Law of Return). In particular jus soli is being denied to those who have lived ancestrally in the land before the founding of the state. —Ashley Y 05:30, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
OK, I've clarified it and removed special mention of Israel. —Ashley Y 05:37, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)


Thanks. I'm not denying that the main reason that Israel established this requirement is because they don't want new generations of Israeli citizens who are not pro-Israel. That's exactly why they established it. It just doesn't belong in such a broad article. Virtually all of the countries that have added a parental requirement in order to limit jus soli, have done so because they wanted to restrict who would receive the citizenship. Focusing solely on Israel and how they use their nationality laws to limit access to the Palestinians would be better suited to an article discussing the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Steggall 15:37, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)

I think it would be worth mentioning in the article and is an interesting aspect of this type of law.--Gloriamarie 17:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States

I'm not sure the United States should be included in the list of countries that "use a mixture of lex sanguinis and lex soli," seeing how anyone born on U.S. soil--even to an illegal immigrant parent--is automatically a U.S. citizen. The situation is not very analogous to other countries on the list (except Canada, I suppose).

I believe that the statement is referring to the fact that the United States has both lex soli based laws (which confer citizenship based on place of birth) and lex sanguinis based laws (which confer citizenship based on ancestry). The statement is not attempting to say that someone born in the United States will be a US citizen only if he also has ancestry ties to the US. (At least that's how I read it). Steggall 22:52 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed the list

I took out some repetitious entries and I alphabetized it. Whodie. Arthurian Legend 23:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article had/has some problems

The article makes it seem strongly critical of Jus sanguinis and really a huge amount of context is missing.

The Balkans, Greece, Turkey most of the Near East and all of Eastern Europe are post empire states. Has anyone looked at the borders of Poland over the past 200 years? Greece? Bulgaria?

Really the article seems (to me), especially with the use of France, to be mixing apples and oranges.

France in fact pretty much has every territory that includes large French populations.

AS examples there were Turks in what is now Greece for 700 years, and Greeks in what is now Turkey and Bulgaria for 2,000-3,000 thousand years who were expelled as the result of international treaty arising from very western European concepts of nationality. The Scandanavian who designed the mutual expulsion and forced jus sangiunus between Greece and Turkey (based on a model a few years before imposed on Bulgaria and Greece) won the Nobel Prize!

There are Greeks in Kazakstan who were denaturalized by Turkey, who fled to the neighboring Soviet Georgia, and who a few years later were forcibly settled in Kazahkstan. At the end of Stalin they were able to relocate to the Soviet caucuses, but like the Jews mostly forbidden from leaving the USSR. They then ended up as bystanders in the crossfire of the Caucasus ethnic fighting (see Abkazia, Chechnya).

On the other hand there are Turks who were forced to flee Greece and Bulgaria, and who Turkey had to accept. To this day there are remnants of these type of populations outside of the original "home country."

Jus sanguinis rights for diasporas and vaste populations outside of state boundaries arise from complex reasons. Agamben's views are highlighted very high in the text yet are extremely narrow and in fact do not address any of the roots of Jus sanguinis in most of the countries cited.

In many cases it is the absence of Jus sanguinis rights which would be a human rights problem. It would create permanantly stateless persons in some cases or force diaspora populations to be exposed to physical danger or cultural assimilation.71.252.83.251 01:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seperate Development in South Africa

Seperate Development ("Apartheid") in South Africa might have been a special case. They subdivided the South African subjects into 4 race categories - Only Whites being citizens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hektorza (talk • contribs) 16:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] article edit

Regarding sentence "It contrasts with jus soli (Latin for "right of soil")."

Does it really 'contrast with jus soli'? Jus Soli is simply another type of multiple citizenship. Therefore it accords with jus soli as a type of multiple citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.41.144 (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)