There is no reasonable way Japan could refuse entry to a US citizens who are suspected of residing in a state without effectively denying all US citizens because there is only one type of US citizen. (Which they are free to do, but obviously won’t.)
On the other hand residents of the EU have it in the reverse. There are 28 (?) different types of citizens, each with different passports, each from countries with different immigration departments, different foreign affairs ministers, etc.
It’s asking a lot for other countries to just blanket accept all of these types of citizens from very different countries, and more to just accept them from any new country that may be added. Turkey is a dictatorship and came damn close to being in the EU. It’s entirely feasible some member country like Hungry (to pick on one) begins to behave badly or becomes a dictatorship or starts persecuting people and the expectation is still we must accept their passports the same as a French one? Absurd. Of course not. The EU is a long way from being a single country.
> The EU is a very complicated collection of many individual countries that all have their own citizens
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_of_the_European_Un...
As a German, I'm a citizen of Germany and a citizen of the EU.
> Free movement in the EU doesn’t even extend to all member countries
Sure it does. It does even extend to a few countries outside the EU.
> different types of citizens
They are all EU citizens. All of them have the right of free movement within the EU. Many of them are also in the Schengen area (which has 400 Million people), which got rid of internal border controls and which has a common Visa policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_Schengen_Ar...
> Turkey is a dictatorship and came damn close to being in the EU.
It never came close to being in the EU. There have been talks since 2005 with not much progress. Turkey would need to fully comply with EU laws and regulations. That's a process which could need another decade. Then the EU countries would need to vote in favor. Every single one of them. That's not clear how that would be achievable. If Turkey would be a dictatorship, then there would be zero chance of Turkey becoming a member of the EU.
> Hungry
Hungary?
Mind that there is also this point: The individual EU-Schengen country doesn't give out visa for their own country. U.S. citizens can only get a Schengen Visa. Thus if the U.S. says "EU Member X requires Visa" country X can't enforce Visa itself the only way X can enforce Visa is by the EU enforcing Visa.
Also the EU is a solidarity agreement - EU member states pledged to stand in for each other at such situations. If EU doesn't uphold it's not fulfilling the promise it gave those countries, when they gave up some souvereignity.
Yes because the US has decided they should be, the EU has decided they want their citizens treating the same also.
I understand your point that you can't differentiate Americans by passport, unlike Europeans, but that's a subtly different argument.
"Turkey is a dictatorship and came damn close to being in the EU" If by damn close you mean informal talks. Theres a list of things nations need to sign up to, be become EU members. Not being a dictatorship is probably in there somewhere.
There is absolutely nothing that would prevent Japan or the EU to impose additional differentiating factors to US citizens is deciding entry to their country.
“For safety reason, we require all visitors to have a valid driving license. We only recognize licenses from those states that have less than x driving related deaths per 100,000.”
Absurd from a policy point of view? Of course. Impossible from a legal point of view? Absolutely not.
If the EU does build a database of US citizens’ lineage and then starts denying US citizens of Croatian descent entry not only would that be hugely ironic it would also cause a pretty emphatic response from the US.
There is only one US country and only one US citizen.
The argument people are making comparing EU countries to US states is absurd.
They might as well be saying “Well what if the EU decided not to allow visa free entry to New Zealand citizens from the city of Auckland. Huzzah! Therefore US should treat all EU countries the same!”
See how absurd that is? Because a US state has just as much control over immigration and foreign policy or national defense etc etc as does a New Zealand city, which is to say none.
Many European countries automatically make people their citizens by lineage, not place of birth. Sometimes with little restriction by the paternal line.
Being born in the US to Croatian parents will make you a citizen of both countries, no application required.
Croatia may not know about it, but you'll still be doing something illegal if such a person applies for an ETIAS and answers "No" to the question about being an EU citizen (which will make you ineligible for an ETIAS).
It would be even messier for them if they were born in Croatia and then immigrated to the US as a child.
That's how the US and Canadian implementations work.
> - There is a separate dispute between EU and US, because US imposes visas on five EU states (Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, Romania and Cyprus). According the EU law, all EU countries should be treated equally or otherwise reciprocal measures should apply. There have been calls within the EU to respond tit for tat and impose EU visas on US citizens, if the issue does not get resolved soon.
So in the dispute above that is being hotly debated, Croatians (for example) want the EU to enforce visa free entry to the US as reciprocation for the visa free entry to the EU. But according to what you say, now US citizens who happen to be of Croatian descent don't have visa free entry to the EU and must get a Croatian passport.
But if it's the machine that's deciding these things based on the letter of the law, you might have a problem.
Maybe ETIAS will have a bigger carve-out for these situations than the US and Canada (which exempt eachothers' citizens). Or maybe they won't.
Wouldn't that be an unreliable test, since you could've renounced your citizenship or have been born to Canadian parents visiting Italy, since Italy is jus sanguinis [1]?
Now you may have to state Yes/No to a question about other citizenships, when the best answer for a lot of Americans (a nation of immigrants) will be “Don’t know for sure, maybe”.
Automatically?
Source?
Croatia: http://eudo-citizenship.eu/NationalDB/docs/CRO%20Law%20on%20...
Section 4: "A child acquires Croatian citizenship by origin: [various criteria about who your parents are]" There's no "may" or "can".
Germany: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law#Descent...
"A person born of a parent with German citizenship at the time of the child's birth is a German citizen. Place of birth is not a factor in citizenship determination based on parentage."
Italy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_nationality_law#Attrib...
"Italian citizenship is granted by birth through the paternal line, with no limit on the number of generations, or through the maternal line for individuals born after 1 January 1948."
France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nationality_law#French_...
"French citizenship by birth abroad to at least one French citizen The child (legitimate or natural) is French if at least one parent is French."
Some countries (like France) require the birth to be registered, while others do not.