[sceptic]

Hi, I was having a chat today and something I have never really thought much about came up, what is your opinion on the following

A married British couple are on holiday in France (the countries do not really matter, transpose it to America and Canada if you like or any other variant you wish to make your point about) and whislt on holiday they have a baby, they are in the country with the Baby for 24 hours, before returning home from their holday, what Nationality is or should that child be and why?

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

the nationality of their parents.

But I am German, and this may explain it.
You have the right to claim German nationality,
if you have Germans as your ancestors.
I believe the current German law takes this
approach too far, but basically I agree.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

As I pointed out with Wayne, here in the USA you have duel citizenship. You can even make child choose at 18 or adult age but until then full citizen.....100%

I think it is nuts that you are born in a country and not be a citizen of that country, there is some kind of test...I guess...silly.....

This just makes babies born in your country feel like second class citizens..how long do they have to stay....one minute, one year...100 years? At the very least you make babies/children/etc feel unequal......and frankly not wanted....

This is nothing but discrimination....you are discriminating....

Let's continue the example at what point would the baby/child have full 100% rights as any other child born in country or for that matter a english child born out of coutnry? Do you really want children to grow up and not feel wanted by your country?

To take Wayne's example to the extreme the English child could be in france 24 hours and spain for 100 years and never live in England but be 100% English citizen but a child who was born in england may or may not be a citizen....see further tests... i guess...

Please note in the USA example, a MOther falls down a hill by accident and child is born in USA, mother scoops up child and rushes back to Canada.......yes that child is a usa citizen....and has full rights to medical, education, voting, running for President, etc.......

[mike777]

P_Marlowe, on Apr 20 2008, 02:28 AM, said:

Hi,

the nationality of their parents.

But I am German, and this may explain it.
You have the right to claim German nationality,
if you have Germans as your ancestors.
I believe the current German law takes this
approach  too far, but basically I agree.

With kind regards
Marlowe

So in your example you can never come within 5000 miles of germany, your parents can never go to germany but you are german citizen with full voting rights if some distant ancestors are from Germany and you can be head of government?

But if you are born and live in germany from turkish parents you cannot or must pass some test?

To be honest I am not even sure what you mean by german ancestor? If I am born in germany do my children have german ancestor? OR are even my children of someone born in germany not legal citizen?

Perhaps I misunderstand what you post but if so this must make alot of people who live in Germany really mad.....

[skjaeran]

If the childs father or mother is a Norwegian citizen, the child automatically becomes a Norwegian citizen, wherever it is born. If it's born in a country with the territory principle, like the US, it will have a dual citizenship. Else, dual citizenship isn't allowed for Norwegians. That means if you take another citizenship you'll have to give up your Norwegian citizenship and vice versa.

[mike777]

skaeran, on Apr 20 2008, 03:18 AM, said:

If the childs father or mother is a Norwegian citizen, the child automatically becomes a Norwegian citizen, wherever it is born. If it's born in a country with the territory principle, like the US, it will have a dual citizenship. Else, dual citizenship isn't allowed for Norwegians. That means if you take another citizenship you'll have to give up your Norwegian citizenship and vice versa.

So a child of a non Norway citizen is not a citizen, even if born there? Does that not make the children feel unwanted? It sounds like you do not want them as citizens....It is discrimination if they are not full citizens:) But then there is alot of discrimination and unwanted children in the world

OTOH if any baby born on your soil, if only for 24 hours, has full rights of citizenship and can be aleader of your country, thanks

[helene_t]

I think it's obvious that the child should have British citizenship. The child will grow up in Britain raised by British parents and there is no point in discriminating it relative to children who are in a similar situation except that they were born 25 hours later.

Whether the child should have French citizenship also is more tricky. In this particular case there seems to be little need for it, but more generally, a child born by foreigners who might or might not stay in the country should have citizenship, I think. So one could argue that the simplest reasonable rule would be that a child always gets the citizenship of the country where it was born.

[kenrexford]

I'd suggest adding in the illegally-present-parent scenario to the discussion.

A pregnant mom is not allowed into a country. Wanting to bypass the rules established by that country, she sneaks into the country across a remote border. While in hiding in the country, she has the child.

Should that child gain automatic citizenship simply because the child dropped out onto the dirt owned by that country, dropping away from another human who was subject toarrest and deportation for illegally gaining entrance into the country?

[helene_t]

Why not? A child of illegal immigrants may have stronger bonds with the host country than with any other country. The same is less likely to be true for a child of tourists.

[kenrexford]

helene_t, on Apr 20 2008, 07:31 AM, said:

Why not? A child of illegal immigrants may have stronger bonds with the host country than with any other country. The same is less likely to be true for a child of tourists.

"Why not?"

OK. Here's an extreme scenario. Jane is a part of a terrorist organization founded for one reason -- the extinction of the principality of Liechtenstein. Because she is a citizen of a different country, she has been banned from Liechtenstein. However, she, while pregnant, jumps across the border and plunks out a baby. The Prince wants her removed, but the child is Liechtensteini (or whatever people from Liechtenstein are called). Is Jane allowed to stay in Liechtenstein to raise her child? Or, does the child now become a ward of the Prince? Or, does the Prince have some duty to send money to Jane to compensate for the health and education of young Bobby?

Or, how about a less troubling scenario. Jane is actually not a terrorist. She's a nice lady from Austria who found out that Liechtenstein has a tremendous standard of living. So, she and her friends decide that they want to live in Liechtenstein. Now, Liechtenstein has adopted an immigration policy that won't allow Jane and all of her friends to move to Liechtenstein. So, Jane and all of her friends get pregnant, with the help of a nice gentleman named Bill who was willing to serve, and cross the border in a mad dash, drop their babies out, and thereby have Liechtensteini children. Jane happens to have five million girlfriends, which makes the Prince very upset (but Bill a very happily tired man). The standard of living in Liechtenstein is in jeopardy, and the five million moms have a compelling story for the press as to the absurdity of not caring for their kids' education and health and a Prince who wants to remove the kids from their moms' care.

I'll grant that, if the moms were allowed to stay for years before anyone did anything, we would have a different scenario to discuss, a more troubling fact pattern created by the Prince doing nothing to remove the moms and their children. But, I don't think there is any similarity between a child raised in a country and a child dropped onto the dirt of a country.

[mike777]

kenrexford, on Apr 20 2008, 06:58 AM, said:

I'd suggest adding in the illegally-present-parent scenario to the discussion.

A pregnant mom is not allowed into a country.  Wanting to bypass the rules established by that country, she sneaks into the country across a remote border.  While in hiding in the country, she has the child.

Should that child gain automatic citizenship simply because the child dropped out onto the dirt owned by that country, dropping away from another human who was subject toarrest and deportation for illegally gaining entrance into the country?

Yes, the child should be a citizen, welcome to America. We hope you stay and make us all better.

In our lifetimes, millions of young Russian men marched into the heart of Europe and what resulted over the next decades were thousands if not hundred of thousands of babies. Many born out of wedlock or as a result of rape. I hope those babies became full citizens.


Today, millions of young men are marching into Europe from North Africa, Turkey, India and Pakistan. No doubt hundreds of thousands of babies will be born as a result of that the next few decades, many out of wedlock. I hope no matter where the Mother or Father is from the babies will be welcomed with love and as full citizens.

[luke warm]

they're called "anchor babies" and are used by illegal aliens to obtain all citizenship rights... there's really no need, though, since it appears the "illegal" part of illegal aliens has become mere semantics

[helene_t]

I used to do voluntary work at a refugee camp in the Netherlands.

The women (and girls) there got pregnant all the time. The people who worked there said it was because they thought that having a child born in the Netherlands would make it easier for them to get permanent residence permit.

In principle, that strategy is not supposed to work. The child has no rights to stay in the Netherlands. But many refugees stayed in the Netherlands for years after having their asylum application rejected because it was infeasible to deport them. Having a young child may add to the problems with deporting people. But whether it is born in the Netherlands or not doesn't matter.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Apr 20 2008, 09:05 AM, said:

I used to do voluntary work at a refugee camp in the Netherlands.

The women (and girls) there got pregnant all the time. The people who worked there said it was because they thought that having a child born in the Netherlands would make it easier for them to get permanent residence permit.

In principle, that strategy is not supposed to work. The child has no rights to stay in the Netherlands. But many refugees stayed in the Netherlands for years after having their asylum application rejected because it was infeasible to deport them. Having a young child may add to the problems with deporting people. But whether it is born in the Netherlands or not doesn't matter.

That is my point, having thousands if not hundreds of thousands of babies across all of Europe not welcomed or wanted with full citizenship rights, even though they were born there, can only cause anger and worse problems. And what happens when the babies start having babies?

What is the UK and France and Poland and the Balkans, etc. going to do with millions and millions of people born in the country but without citizenship over the next decades? Are you going to keep them in refugee camps, or ghettos without schools and rights and without the opportunity to become head of state?

[mike777]

It seems wierd that immigration should ever be an issue in this of all places.


Is this not the land where Greeks, Romans, Saxons, Franks, Vikings and numerous Germanic tribes, immigrated all over the place.

Peoples from North Africa, Asia and the steppes of Russia have moved to Europe, since the dawn of man, in mass numbers.

[sceptic]

Quote

(or whatever people from Liechtenstein are called)

I think "Otto" may be a good name

[Elianna]

I think that the child should CLEARLY be a British citizen. Maybe the parents should need to make some application, but it should be a formality: as others have said, this child will have all of its ties to Britain.

I can understand the case for France not granting citizenship: this is not the child of parents who have made an attempt at gaining residency.

I know that in the US this is different, mainly because of our unique history of being a country of immigrants.

I think (in an ideal world) that the main deciding factors should be the parent's residency as relates to birth country citizenship, and their citizenship status as relates to their country of origin. So this way there would be many more dual citizens.

(So speaks someone who is a triple citizen)

[Gerben42]

My position:

The child should automatically gain French citizenship if it has lived there for a period of say 5 years or so. 24 hours is not even close to a reasonable time scale.

[kenrexford]

mike777, on Apr 20 2008, 09:32 AM, said:

It seems wierd that immigration should ever be an issue in this of all places.


Is this not the land where Greeks, Romans, Saxons, Franks, Vikings and numerous Germanic tribes, immigrated all over the place.

Peoples from North Africa, Asia and the steppes of Russia have moved to Europe, since the dawn of man, in mass numbers.

Well, I'm not sure I would called that the kind of immigration we want to encourage.

If I recall my history correctly, many of these people "immigrated" to another place, killing soldiers in armies who were slightly opposed to the immigration tactics, overthrowing the leaders of the destination lands, raping and pilaging, and the like.

I may be confused. Take the Viking immigrantion to England, for instance. Perhaps the good folks on their ships of peace rode up the riverways looking for a greeting party when they arrived, to share cultures and food and the like. Then, the nasty conservatives of the day, called the Monks, refused to provide any of the welfare benefits available from sales of the jewelry, because the Pope was just plain rude and a bad host. So, the Vikings offered their assets to the people, as a gesture of sharing! The Vikings were just not too competent in the ways of the local culture, offering their best assets, swords, blade first, which was quite rude to the eyes of the British, but all meant in good humor. Once the Brits understood, many cities were names after their good new friends, and their children, and all is now well in England.

A similar cultural misunderstanding took place with Alexander the Great. His folks had a smashing party thrown for them by the people of Persia years ago, so he thought he would return the favor. He and several of his friends set forth to enjoy the well-known hospitality of the Eastern lands, on a goodwill tour, if you will. The group of tourists from Greece met many strange and interesting people on their visits, and were welcomed with open arms. So, finding new friendships and kinships and such, many of the Greeks relocated to these fine places. The peoples of those lands were so joyous at the arrival of new friends that they actually abandoned all of the best homes and best neighborhoods to create a good, cheap housing market for the weary travelers. They even provided, at great cost to themselves, mind you, funding for many public works projects to celebrate the cultural heritage of these new Greek friends.

Speaking of the dawn of man. I heard that man arrived in Europe to find great new friends called the Neanderthals. Everyone was giddy with excitement over this new cooperative that was developing between them. Whereas man had developed bows and arrows, the Neanderthals had developed a great liking to a games called "Catch the Arrow" and "Head-Butt the Axe." This friendship went on for years, until sadly the Neanderthals were no longer to be found. We don't know why they left. Rumor is that the Neanderthals so loved their new friends that they gave away all of the good land and all of their food, which was silly. They starved to death, but warm with the content of having provided so much for their great new friends.

[Aberlour10]

mike777, on Apr 20 2008, 03:11 AM, said:

So in your example you can never come within 5000 miles of germany, your parents can never go to germany but you are german citizen with full voting rights if some distant ancestors are from Germany and you can be head of government?

But if you are born and live in germany from turkish parents you cannot or must pass some test?

To be honest I am not even sure what you mean by german ancestor? If I am born in germany do my children have german ancestor? OR are even my children of someone born in germany not legal citizen?

Perhaps I misunderstand what you post but if so this must make alot of people who live in Germany really mad.....

It is possible since January 2000, but there are two strict conditions:
-one or both parents have been living in Germany for more than 8 years
-he/she has the legal permit of residence.

...but the German citizienship law is generally based on "ancestor-principe", more than million people from Poland, Russia etc, immigrated in the 80s, 90s in this way to Germany, but the rules and regulations are much more stronger now

Robert