Not false. How is ~164 out of 194 countries jus sanguinis not most? There are approx 30 of 194 that are jus soli. How is that “false”.

And except for Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chili and Uruguay, the rest aren’t what one would think of as “sought after”, otherwise you’d have other people trying to take advantage of their citizenship policies.

Chili sounds spicy.

I’m not pro jus soli but to characterize birth tourism as a big problem is crazy. A conservative think tank estimated it at 40,000 births per year out of 4.3 million (0.9%) — the average delivery costs $32,000 for an economic benefit of $1.28B per year. Then those poor kids are going to have to pay US income taxes for the rest of their natural lives no matter where they live. We can expect the first 18 years to be abroad since their parents don’t get citizenship and the US has effectively zero social safety net anyways. What’s the big deal?

It’s not a problem in and of itself but it’s illustrative of our lax policy.

No matter how much some people might dislike the 14th Amendment, it ain't going anywhere.

How does that make the policy lax? Compared to what, zero admissions?

We allow millions in legally every year. Birth tourism often involves immigration fraud. It’s seldom prosecuted = lax enforcement.

So, no, we still would allow millions of legal immigrants in. We’d just crack down on unregulated immigrants.

1 million per year, not millions, in a country of 325 million (0.3%), for comparison Canada lets in 0.33 million per year in a country of 36 million (almost 1%).

An entire continent, of the youngest countries consisting of liberal democracies being jus soli isn't something you can just wave away and pretend is irrelevant or has some particularly unusual behavior.

Said countries have even laxes immigration policies, similar proportions of immigrant populations, the same anti-immigrant rhetoric that you're spouting, and yet it's just not really the problem that it's made out to be at all.

Wanting control over who comes in and who goes out is not “anti-immigrant rhetoric”, If those countries had sudden surges, you’d see them change, just look at the Venezuela/Colombia border to see how a surge will change opinion anc behavior.

Chile is also cracking down on illegal entries now that they’re more prevalent. No country will have unrestricted immigration, otherwise why not form a union with neighbors?

Also my claim wasn’t false as you suggested.

It’s not false it’s just irrelevant. People are people no matter where they’re from, the US has some of the toughest immigration laws anywhere, immigrants boost the economy and the US is squandering it’s opportunity by letting countries like Canada take in the worlds best and brightest.

I take you haven’t been to Japan, South Africa, Korea or China. We’re not tough by a long shot.

I sure have, and Japan believe it or not has no caps or quotas on immigration and just introduced a bunch of measures to make it easier to immigrate. Limiting immigrants is a bad thing and the US could stand to benefit hugely, economically and socially, by laxening the rules.

What does a quota matter when you have other real effective restrictions.

Also, I’m for immigration where we have proven needs. I don’t agree with flooding the market and depressing wages for average workers. PhDs, sure, rare skills, sure.

Or, let’s put it this way, would you be in favor we took Japan’s immigration system part and parcel and implemented it as they have?

Back up. You cite Japan as a strict immigration program (they have no caps, quotas and are actively recruiting foreigners and changing laws to make immigration more attractive), China (a totalitarian ethnostate actively placing a portion of the population in labor camps), South Africa (struggling with the fallout of apartheid) and Korea (I don’t know enough to comment) as your prime examples of tough immigration policy being ... what exactly? I don’t want Japan’s system for America, I want Canada’s - largely merit based, quick, efficient and open to anyone skilled, while still open to refugees and people in need. That’s how economies grow.

All of the these countries have universal healthcare and stronger better labor laws. I have spent a lot of time in Canada. They have generous social programs and Unions there are doing very well.

The United States puts American workers at a unique disadvantage to immigrants because there isn't much of a social safety net. It ends up a race to the bottom for cheaper disposable labor.

To be fair, it is not tough at all for a "high-skilled" foreigner to work at China by getting a Z-visa - I guess most employees at Bay Area fall into this category.

Indeed - they're pretty lax as countries go and there's other ways as well. Only downside is it's virtually impossible for a foreign citizen to get permanent residency for China, so you'll be renewing that visa every two years for the rest of your life.

> No country will have unrestricted immigration, otherwise why not form a union with neighbors?

See: The European Union

Inb4 "Yeah, but they have immigration control," yes, they do but upon entering and leaving the Schengen; otherwise, it's based on agreements with other countries.

It's why you can travel to Europe for up to 90 days on only a "visitor" visa (which is, really, just an entry stamp).

...but to say that countries don't trust their neighbours have strict border control between themselves (and haven't formed a union with their neighbours) pretty much negates the realities of the Eastern hemisphere.