I think xenophobic is a good word for it since they tend to be bigoted against people from basically all other cultures. Whereas a racist white American likely wouldn't make much distinction between themselves and a white Brit or Canadian,. Bigoted Japanese people will look down on Koreans, Chinese, etc. Hell, they discriminate against ethnic Japanese people that are descendents of those that lived in Brazil. Xenophobic is a more useful word.
Because American concept of race is stupid. Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese are all classified as Asian, so if they hate each other, it can't be racism. But that makes about as much sense as saying that no one is racist because we are all one human race. Racism from an American view barely works when applied just to the US and falls apart when it is applied globally. We need a better way to describe bigotry in general, but the topic is complex and people want simple labels. So we always end up with simple labels that don't fit some situations and then some people acting like the situations the labels don't fit is not nearly as bad as the situations where the labels do fit.
Spending enough time in those spheres makes it easy to pick up. I know less about citizenship in other countries without using Wikipedia as a source or if there is youtube videos about the process.
If it helps, we can certainly note that Antigua & Barbuda and Tanzania are in the list of unrestricted jus soli countries as well.
Mongolia has a more restricted form with some stipulations,1 along with Australia, Sweden, Thailand, and more.
1 Generally, this looks something like a requirement that one’s parents must have been living within the territory for a given number of years, and/or that one must actively claim it rather than citizenship being conferred automatically.
Unconditional birthright citizenship is actually rare for most countries. In Europe for example, no country offers unconditional birthright citizenship (at least one parent of citizenship is usually needed). I'd be okay with a more nuanced form of citizenship. For example, if you are born in the US and live there at least X years, you gain citizenship automatically, instead of this bullshit where Russian elite fly over, give birth, then fly back to their home country.
I always liked this scene that gives perspective on how Native Americans weren't a single homogenous harmonious people (as stereotypes would have it), but rather many separate nations that fought over and conquered territory from each other long before Europeans came.
Depends entirely on where those countries are. In the Americas birthright citizenship in the norm. Almost every country in the Americas has it. In Eurasia it's the opposite.
Most of those are tiny countries in the Caribbean and central/south America. The only first world countries in that list are the US and Canada. Remember, there are almost 200 countries in the world.
An additional 37 have jus soli with some varying restrictions, putting the wider scope total of soli v sanguinis at more like 36%.
While I wouldn’t argue that it’s necessarily common, it also seems disingenuous to state that something prevalent in virtually the entirety of the North and South American continents is “rare.”
Almost all states in Europe, Asia, Africa and Oceania grant nationality at birth based upon the principle of jus sanguinis ("right of blood"), in which nationality is inherited through parents rather than birthplace, or a restricted version of jus soli in which nationality by birthplace is automatic only for the children of certain immigrants.
62
u/ChiggaOG Jul 20 '24
Sounds like what Japan has, but getting citizenship in Japan is harder even for someone living over there and working.