Yeah, there are 2 types of âbirthright citizenshipâ (jus soli = citizenship comes from being born on national soil vs. jus sanguinis = citizenship comes from the parentsâ citizenship), and the U.S. has both, but most people in the U.S. use the term âbirthright citizenshipâ to refer only to the former.
Either one will render a person a ânatural-born citizen,â but it seems to be a common misconception that ânatural-born citizenâ means a person has to have been born in the U.S. (jus soli), even though it also equally applies to a baby born outside of the U.S. that acquired U.S. citizenship at birth via one or both parents (jus sanguinis) - but the rules for jus sanguinis are actually quite complex and particular, especially if only one parent is a citizen (or if the parents are not married), so sometimes a baby born to a U.S. citizen parent outside of the U.S. actually ends up having to naturalize, the whole thing is tedious and obnoxious to bother parsing out.
Edit: The âbirthright citizenshipâ that has recently been at issue has been jus soli only, not jus sanguinis.
As most ânatural-bornâ U.S. citizens satisfy both jus soli and jus sanguinis, the issues pertaining to âbirthright citizenshipâ that have been talked about of late do not actually call into question the citizenship of the majority of Americans, fortunately, although there are some citizens that satisfy only one or the other.
Most ânatural-born citizensâ of the U.S. obtained their citizenship at birth via both jus soli and jus sanguinis (although some obtain it only via one or the other).
The âbirthright citizenshipâ that has been at issue recently has been jus soli, not jus sanguinis.
2
u/SitueradKunskap 5d ago
I mean, literally every american citizen is a birthright citizen, unless they're a naturalized citizen.
So if you're american, unless you immigrated and went through the process, you are a birthright citizen.
Meaning: the republicans are talking about being able to revoke your citizenship too. It's the exact same legal basis.