Talk:Jus soli
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
Contents |
[edit] Lex soli?
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)
[edit] First principles
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.86.144.129.166 23:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] POV
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)
[edit] deportations
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)
[edit] Unclear statement
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)

