What are your thoughts on how "initial" citizenship should be structured?
I've simplified it in the poll, leaving out a foreign national obtaining citizenship well after birth (ie Green Card, or via Immigration Process") as this tends to go through a "residency permit" process, rarely would a country offer full citizenship straight away.
In NZ, we switched from having citizenship by birth, to citizenship via parents, a few years ago, and this thread was also inspired by an article in my local paper about a woman who had lived here for 50 years but had only just got her citizenship. She had moved from the Netherlands as a small child, but had not got NZ citizenship because the Dutch government didn't allow dual citizenships until quite recently. However, she claimed she had felt "100% New Zealander" for her entire life - which made me wonder why she held onto her Dutch citizenship for 50 years.
Imma go with parent's citizenship. Currently, in the US, we have a major problem with "anchor babies." Essentially, illegal immigrants will come over pregnant and about to give birth, have the kid in the USA, and then be able to stay in the country as their child is now a US citizen, despite being in the country under false pretense.
I voted that there should be no citizenships. In my opinion it doesn't make a lot of sense to grant people rights based on the location they were born. Getting rid of citizenships altogether would increase the individual freedom, create competition between governments (if there are few barriers to migrations governments have to be efficient to keep qualified workers), reduce overhead (don't want to know how much my government spends on dealing with illegal migrants) etc.
There would also be some downsides - there would be more competition on the job market, but those downsides may lead to beneficial developments in themselves. Maybe a social security system that would collapse under strain of limitless immigration would simply be modified so that it is only applicable to people who have worked within a country for a number of years.
Imma go with parent's citizenship. Currently, in the US, we have a major problem with "anchor babies." Essentially, illegal immigrants will come over pregnant and about to give birth, have the kid in the USA, and then be able to stay in the country as their child is now a US citizen, despite being in the country under false pretense.
Quoted for truth.
Citizens by parents, definitely.
This is my indictment of your beliefs
This is my indictment of what you hold dear
My eyes have seen the horrors that you
Commit in the name of your god
Your god is violence your god is unholy
Imma go with parent's citizenship. Currently, in the US, we have a major problem with "anchor babies." Essentially, illegal immigrants will come over pregnant and about to give birth, have the kid in the USA, and then be able to stay in the country as their child is now a US citizen, despite being in the country under false pretense.
I keep hearing about how it is a "major problem". Do you have information that supports that claim? As in, something that shows that anchor babies are harming America?
I keep hearing about how it is a "major problem". Do you have information that supports that claim? As in, something that shows that anchor babies are harming America?
I think he means that illegal immigrants are using their babies as an excuse to stay in america.
I voted that there should be no citizenships. In my opinion it doesn't make a lot of sense to grant people rights based on the location they were born. Getting rid of citizenships altogether would increase the individual freedom, create competition between governments (if there are few barriers to migrations governments have to be efficient to keep qualified workers), reduce overhead (don't want to know how much my government spends on dealing with illegal migrants) etc.
There would also be some downsides - there would be more competition on the job market, but those downsides may lead to beneficial developments in themselves. Maybe a social security system that would collapse under strain of limitless immigration would simply be modified so that it is only applicable to people who have worked within a country for a number of years.
I guess I can compare this with the situation in New Zealand.
By getting New Zealand citizenship, you also get access to a 'Special Category Visa' for Australia, meaning you are able to live and work there indefinitely, the only difference being around financial aid. For example, if I were to go to study in Australia, I would be eligible for the government-subsidised fees, but not the weekly/monthly student benefit.
Comparing the Australian and NZ employment situation, the minimum wage is $18.80 vs $12.75, taxes are lower (eg GST is 10% vs 15%), and the job opportunities are far higher. Migration is massive as well, there are 4 million NZers in NZ, and 500,000 in Australia. Some towns, especially in WA state, NZers are the largest 'ethnic' minority.
This is not just a brain drain, it's people from all sections of society. The effect is pretty debilitating however. In extremely limited positions, like specialist doctors, they have to work much harder to cover the losses of doctors going to Australia. That means that not only is their pay far lower, but the working conditions far worse. The flow-on effect is that health services here become degraded, despite this country producing enough doctors to meet its own needs.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Citizenship 
Linear Mode
