Talk:Jus sanguinis

previous content

See /Wilson Letter for previous content.

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)

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)

Fixed the list

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

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)

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).

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)

Reference?

where are all the references? did someone pull this info out of a hat? it seems that way with all the states and no sources for them. It's liable for deletion as original research at this rate. Lihaas (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Are there no publicised criticisms of Jus sanguinis? I was studying the two, and found that more people were opposed to jus soli, and could not find any criticism of jus sanguinis. Are there any? Perhaps if anyone finds any post it to this site please. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion | expansion of jus soli in intro

. . . greetings all, suggestion department : would it be right to have a slightly expanded explanation of the contrast ? As it stands, the intro is greatly concise. Could it include an equally concise explanation of jus soli ? thanks so much all for the resource, jason

'

Jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood) is a social policy by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth, but by having a parent(s) who are citizens of the nation. It contrasts with jus soli (Latin for "right of soil"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avaiki (talk • contribs) 00:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Section on Poland: I (Thanatos) vs 72.130.237.150

See here (my talk page). Thanatos|talk 03:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Taiwan

There is an article on jus sanguinis, the primary right of nationality in Taiwan at Nationality_Law_of_the_Republic_of_China#Nationality. Any child of Taiwan citizens acquires citizenship by birth, with some special rules governing right to live there. Any interest in adding it to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twocs (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Are there any countries which do not provide any form of jus sanguinis?

Are there any countries which do not provide any form of jus sanguinis? I think this is a question that the article should answer. -- Paul Richter (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct interpretation of jus sanguinis

In Wong Foong v. U.S. 69 F. 2d. 681 (2001) the court held that in England children born abroad with an English father did not acquire citizenship. In Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S.657.1.c. 663 (1927)the Court held that children born abroad are aliens. Since it is accepted that England had two birth provisions, jus soli and jus sanguinis and all citizens by birth had to be dictated by place of birth since 1066 and continues, jus sanguinis could only means naturalization. Our 14th Amendment also uses both when it says citizenship can be acquired by birth or naturalization, jus soli or jus sanguinis. Congress is constitutionally limited providing uniform Rules for Naturalization and according to Chief Justice Marshall in Osborn v. Bank 22 u.S.(9 Wheat)738 said "the simple ower of the national legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as regards the individua.

Cjh2604 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Clarence Hall, Jr. challjr@satx.rr.comCjh2604 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

sourcing and other issues

The following is almost entirely unsourced and was moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BURDEN please do not restore without finding independent, reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them, and ensuring that this content has appropriate WP:WEIGHT in the article overall.

The first ref also doesn't support any of the content, and appears to be spam.

Content

Nationality Conferment

This list includes parents' ability to confer nationality on their children or to spouses.

Refs

References

Africa

Country:	Unmarried fathers ability to confer nationality on children	Mothers ability to confer nationality on children	Women’s ability to confer nationality to spouses
Benin
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Comoros
Congo
Egypt
Guinea
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Madagascar
Malawi
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Nigeria
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia

Americas

Country:	Unmarried fathers ability to confer nationality on children	Mothers ability to confer nationality on children	Women’s ability to confer nationality to spouses
Bahamas
Barbados
Guatemala
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

Asia

Country:	Unmarried fathers ability to confer nationality on children	Mothers ability to confer nationality on children	Women’s ability to confer nationality to spouses
Bahrain
Bangladesh	[[Image:Yes check.svg|15px|Yes]|
Brunei
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Malaysia
Nepal
Oman
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Syria
Thailand
United Arab Emirates
Yemen

Europe

Country:	Unmarried fathers ability to confer nationality on children	Mothers ability to confer nationality on children	Women’s ability to confer nationality to spouses
Monaco

Oceania

Country:	Unmarried fathers ability to confer nationality on children	Mothers ability to confer nationality on children	Women’s ability to confer nationality to spouses
Kiribati
Nauru
Solomon Islands

Notes

Refs

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You claim that the whole content is not sourced, then you say that the first SOURCE is a spam ! so what do you recommend Mr. Jyt ? Do we have to delete all that spam effort and block the editor indefinitely for spamming ?! This wikipedia should be edited with limited intellectual persons who would create a better world for the next generation ! I would delete the content myself because it is a total unnecessary rubbish but I want to hear the experts opinion about this dilemma !

And I recommend to block the editor for 1 year because he does not respect the five pillars of Athens, being a master of socks in the theater of Paris and a disruptive user who wastes his time adding maps and tables for no reason as a hobby ! you should also report this issue to the FBI to catch this user in person because such despicable acts should not be tolerated ! Hamath-Zobah 17 (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Nothing has been deleted. It is being discussed, and discussion is the foundation of Wikipedia. If you would like to discuss the issues here, please let me know. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Check the sources, non of them is a spam ! if the sources are correct, you have to retrieve the content to the article ! Hamath-Zobah 17 (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I will retrieve the content to the main article as you have not replied ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamath-Zobah 17 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I missed your response where you wrote "check the sources". So the source is really a weird one to be using here. First, it is an advocacy website. Second, it is kind of about something else - not just listing what countries have which kind of citizenship rights but focusing on a) where there are differences between men and women passing rights to their kids (what this article is about) but also b) "unmarried fathers" (not sure what this means exactly) and then the third set of issues c) about women changing their citizenship at all or conferring citizenship on their husbands, which has nothing to do with the topic of this article. The reason why I said 'spam' is that I don't understand why this source was chosen at all. Perhaps we could take this to WP:RSN for discussion. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to start some other article. Maybe if we take this bit by bit, it will go better. What does wives conferring citizenship to their husbands, have to do with the topic of this article? Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You can start a new article regarding the differences of conferring the nationality between men and women if you want to ! When unmarried men or women have kids (unmarried fathers), they cannot confer their nationality to their children in Malaysia unless they marry. The other sources are different from the first one so you can give a feedback about it as well. Hamath-Zobah 17 (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Why did you reply after me but you put your text before my section where I wrote start a new article?!! However, I told you to start a new article as you claim that conferring nationality from wives to husbands is not related to this article !

It seems that you are arguing for the purpose of removing all the content in total ! as you try to disprove the sources, then taking each segment and debunk it ! you even did not check the other sources ! write here your last proposal to end this dilemma ! Hamath-Zobah 17 (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep, the sources are problematic as are the content. I can't help you if you don't respond to what I ask. Jytdog (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: First of all, you are not an admin to threaten me of blocking after I retrieve my main edits (you are the one who has two reverts so far); secondly, I told you to either start a new article or to CHECK THE PDF SOURCE and to give a feedback, but apparently I am writing in a Cuneiform text ! then you say YEP to delete all the content ! you have 24 hours to present your final solution otherwise I will keep the content as it is ! Hamath-Zobah 17 (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a "final solution"; I am trying to work with you. It is not a good idea to edit war. We ultimately need to discuss both the content and the sources on which it is based. We should probably get the content figured out first, since if we go to RSN we will need to present the content as well as the sources. So .. I ask again, what does the last column (women conferring citizenship on their spouses) have to do with the subject of this article? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The last column is not directly related to the articles title, but it is related to the section title (nationality conferring) in that including all the related issues in one map ! you can check these sources.

Refs

References

To be clear, you prefer to keep the third column in this article, is that right? thx Jytdog (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Is the third column the only thing that bothers you here? I told you it is related to the map to include all the related issues regarding nationality conferring ! I can add the other two sources to the content to avoid your claim about "advocacy sources" ! Check this source as well ! Hamath-Zobah 17 (talk) 10:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a bunch of stuff here as i've said. Ultimately questions about content and sourcing get handled together. There are a whole bunch of questions we ask.

One of them is, "Are these sources, reliable for this content?" That is the question we would ask at WP:RSN.

We also ask, "Does this content belong in this article, or is it WP:OFFTOPIC? (that is the stuff about the third column.. I ~think~ the other two columns may be "on topic").

There is also a question of WP:WEIGHT that we haven't gotten to yet.

But the first serious stop to resolve our dispute, will be RSN, and before we bring this there, I wanted to make sure the content we bring is not OFFTOPIC. So I am suggesting we get rid of that, as it will become a distraction at RSN. But if you are committed to keeping the third column in this article, we can bring that messiness with us to RSN. Jytdog (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Arguing with you is like hitting a brick wall ! I deleted the content myself ! enjoy ! if you want to undo any of my future edits, just do it, I wont be bothered to argue with a user like you ! Hamath-Zobah 17 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

As you will. I was/am ready to continue working the DR process. Jytdog (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Netherlands

Should the Netherlands be included, according to the content of Dutch nationality law? 13:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Vietnam

According to https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-become-a-Vietnamese-citizen/answer/Jonathan-Ritchie, Vietnam has Jus sanguinis as well. But do we need primary source before adding? jlam (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Aral pan

Jus sanguinis 175.176.93.247 (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

iraq?

Why isn’t Iraq on the list? You can become a citizen through your parents for Iraq to

https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/1963/en/17880 https://mofa.gov.iq/nationality-cert/ 2603:6011:5D21:F68A:9CD9:63A9:66BB:8206 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Race, Law, and Politics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 21hroush (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Keegan M. Conway Kconway032313 17:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

And where is Saudi and some other countries?

Saudi Arabia and some other countries should be added. 176.223.172.117 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)