Few countries have jus soli citizenship. Even many countries regarded as relatively open and welcoming would not permit locally born minors to stay indefinitely if their non-citizen or non-PR parents lose grounds for residency.

Jus soli is all about birth, so I'm not calling for that. I'm saying if a country is your home from your first memories until some time in your teens then regardless of legal status you are from that country and it's bad to kick you out.

So what you’re asking for is even more generous than jus soli, and obviously that’s not realistic.

No, I'm asking for something significantly less generous.

Instead of being in the country the day you're born, it's being in the country for something like 90% of your life from birth until somewhere in your teens.

Yes, “somewhere in your teens” includes people who are still minors, and again, if their parents have no grounds for residence, it is typical even of more open countries that their children don’t either.

> “somewhere in your teens” includes people who are still minors

It does!

Versus jus soli which includes people that are only days old...

> again, if their parents have no grounds for residence, it is typical

Again I'm talking about what I find moral, not what's typical.

And if you have no grounds for residence you're usually not staying there for over a decade. If someone does stay and raise a child for well over a decade, despite lack of grounds, there's a point where that child shouldn't be forced "back" to a "homeland" that isn't their actual home.

Also if it's more convincing we could stick to a threshold of 18 for right now. That would still do most of the job.

No one cares about one HN poster’s ideas about what is moral if even countries regarded as pretty good aren’t implementing policies so generous.

Well they don't implement jus soli either so that's not saying a ton. What I'm asking for is lesser but not that much lesser.

If you've heard the term "Dreamers" then you'll understand this isn't some weird isolated idea I have.

IF those children live according to the laws of the land, speak the language of the land, don't espouse views which directly go against the culture of the land and ended up becoming self-supporting there certainly is a good case to be made for them to be allowed to stay in the land.

If they don't speak the language because their parents actively kept them from integrating into the land's culture which they (the parents) consider to be bad in some way, they (the children) violated the laws of the land and have well-filled rap sheets, they go out of their way to voice their dislike of the culture which allowed their parents in and they live on welfare because working is for 'svenner' they are very much invited to leave on the first ship or train of plane whether they like it or not.

So the US should kick out the Amish?

Now please explain to all of us what made you come to that conclusion from what I just wrote. Explain in detail, referring to the actual statements I made, not just vague hand waves.