JUS SOLI

Eric e-mailed me to ask me about why I criticized jus soli. Eric thinks it's better than jus sanguinis, at least, because it at least tends in the direction of the principle that people who are affected by a government decision (by being on the soil, for example) should have a say in the decision. Jus sanguinis doesn't have as close a fit with that basic democratic principle of citizenship.

Eric's right to an extent. I'm still indifferent to jus soli as such because I think that the critical battle should be fought on the naturalization front, and that is why I find Foley's nativism to be repulsive. Whatever the allocation of citizenship at birth, defensible citizenship policies should allow people to consent to new citizenship in a relatively easy fashion. Easier rules of naturalization would also accord better with the principle that people should have a say in the affairs of governments that act on them.

If, in an alternate world, someone proposed abolishing jus soli rules because they seemed strange and feudal, and the debate over abolishment wouldn't whip up nativist sentiment that will result in both legal and illegal attacks on non-citizens and immigrants, I wouldn't be too upset. Foley's proposal is resolutely part of our world, though. So even though I'm indifferent to jus soli, I am opposed to Foley's proposed changes. I hope he's just engaging in posturing anyway.