Aceticon

I think at least some countries in Europe had a similar system as the US but moved to Restricted Birthright in the 80s because of freeloading - i.e. well off people with no connection to a country just flying over and having their kids there to give them citizenship in that country.

With Restricted Birthright the parents have to have been living in that country for a few years - so de facto being members of that society - to earn that right.

Personally I think it's fair that those comitted to participating in a Society all deserve the same rights (including local nationality for their children) independently of themselves having or not the local nationality, whilst those who are not comitted to participating in that Society do not, and "being resident in that country for more than X years" seems to me a pretty neutral and reasonably fair way to determine "comitted to participating in that country's Society".

That's what everybody will be saying in the Northern Hemisphere every time there is a break in the nuclear winter cloud cover, only with more feeling of joy (so, more exclamation marks!!!).

I think that the Restricted Birthright citizenship which is most common in Europe tries to navigate somewhere between those two extremes - in it basically if you're a Resident in that country for more than X years (from what I've seen usually X years is 2 years) then your children born there get citizenship.

It filters out freeloading - well-off people who have no personal investment in a country and its future and never contributed to it in any way, just flying over and having their kids there to give them citizenship - whilst still extending the same rights as locals have to those who, whilst not having the local nationality, are participating members of that society.

I think the fairest way is to give equal treatment (including giving the local nationality to their children and making it available to they themselves after a few years living there) to those who are participating members of a society but not to those who are not members of that society, and that would also mean that the fairest treatment would be that the children of local nationals who have long ago left (and the children themselves never in fact lived there) do not get that nationality automatically for merely their parents having it.

Ultimately I think nationality should be earned by living as part of a Society and when they're born children, having not have had a chance to "earn" it, would inherited that from the or parents.

That said some level of obtaining nationality based on the nationality of one's parents makes sense to cover the time gaps of people who moved abroad and had children there before they could qualify for the nationality of the country they were born with, since otherwise those children would be stateless.

As for the decision mechanism being "years legally living in a country" it's just the simplest and most equal for all (passing no judgment for things like what people do for a living) way of judging "participating in that Society" whilst only excluding people who were neither invited in nor taken in because they've truly need help (i.e. it's only for legal immigrants and refugees).

More like "He who pops from the right (read: sufficiently wealthy) vagina wins!"

In the other countries whose language I speak well enough to be able to spot it (granted, only 4), the upper class simply don't have their own accent (though they do signal their status, just in other ways), but I can't really know for sure if there are other countries out there in the World with an "upper class accent".

You're joking but when living in Britain I did know a couple of people who weren't middle-class English and whose natural accent wasn't the so-called English RP accent (basically middle-class English / BBC presenter accent) and who made quite the effort to speak with the latter accent.

In Britain (most notably England) one's accent is a huge part of presenting the "right" image, to the point that the upper class has their own accent (known as the "posh accent") independent of region, something which is at very least highly unusual in other countries.

We don't live in a Meritocracy, not even close.

I use MullvadVPN and I almost always encounter this issue.

It probably depends on which server(s) you're using.

I think the widespread political "unwavering support" for a nation committing Genocide, which is justified by the ethnicity of the people of that nation, kinda shows that some part of Fascism (the whole "people's race is what matters the most and some races are better than others") hasn't at all been stamped out.

Then there's AfD which is just taking the "if it's good to support them because of their race, then it's good to support us" step closer to Fascism.

Germany is far closer to a certain philosophy anchored on classifying one's fellow human being as worthy or unworthy depending on race than one would like to believe (certainly, I liked to believe before the political reaction there to whole Gaza thing made it too obvious to deny) - the symbols were made illegal whilst the spirit lives.

The funny bit is that if their stock price falls 90% in 6 months, their P/E will almost certainly still be above the auto industry average because their earnings will be falling too.

When I was finishing of my degree at Uni I actually spent a couple of months as an auxiliary teacher giving professional training in Unix, which included teaching people shell script.

Nowadays (granted, almost 3 decades later), I remember almost nothing of shell scripting, even though I've stayed on the Technical Career Track doing mostly Programming since.

So that joke is very much me irl.

Good luck getting the Trumpettes to understand that...