• macronage@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    You’re looking at one scenario which doesn’t come up too frequently, and based on that you’ve decided that the way your country does it is better. Maybe you’re right.

    Here’s a different scenario where I think the US does it better: when citizenship is only inherited, a person could be born in your country, live their whole lives knowing only your culture, and still not be considered a citizen because their parents were immigrants. Or worse, their grandparents were immigrants. That’s a homegrown underclass.

    I don’t assume that the US has everything figured out, but there’s a reason a nation of immigrants values the rights of immigrants.

    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      21 days ago

      I’m not saying my country does it better btw.

      In your scenario, the parents lived in the country all that time without becoming citizens, so were there illegally.

      There’s a difference between immigrants and illegal immigrants.

      • macronage@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 days ago

        There is a difference between legal & illegal immigrants. I was talking about legal ones & made no mention of illegal immigration. It sounds like you might be saying that legal immigrants become illegal after some period of time? If that’s true in your country, that’s fine. But in many countries, people can legally be non-citizen residents for extended periods. In countries without birthright citizenship, their kids aren’t automatically citizens.