Current U.S. law makes foreign children born in the United States citizens at birth. Most of these children are also citizens of their parents’ home countries, so these children typically hold two or three citizenships. It is interesting to consider how this type of situation was handled in the past. The following excerpt is from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, first published in 1689.
Sect. 118. But, it is plain, governments themselves understand it otherwise; they claim no power over the son, because of that they had over the father; nor look on children as being their subjects, by their fathers being so. If a subject of England have a child, by an English woman in France, whose subject is he? Not the king of England’s; for he must have leave to be admitted to the privileges of it: nor the king of France’s; for how then has his father a liberty to bring him away, and breed him as he pleases? and who ever was judged as a traytor or deserter, if he left, or warred against a country, for being barely born in it of parents that were aliens there? It is plain then, by the practice of governments themselves, as well as by the law of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country or government. He is under his father’s tuition and authority, till he comes to age of discretion; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under, what body politic he will unite himself to: for if an Englishman’s son, born in France, be at liberty, and may do so, it is evident there is no tie upon him by his father’s being a subject of this kingdom; nor is he bound up by any compact of his ancestors. And why then hath not his son, by the same reason, the same liberty, though he be born any where else? Since the power that a father hath naturally over his children, is the same, where-ever they be born, and the ties of natural obligations, are not bounded by the positive limits of kingdoms and commonwealths.
Posted 2023/09/04
John Locke was a wise man, but I’m not sure it would be to one’s benefit to be from no-man’s land till he became of age. What do you think?
Locke was explaining the system of his time as he understood it, and using it as an example to support his theory of consent of the governed. While I kind of like the idea of a person choosing his/her nationality, Locke’s brief explanation leaves a lot unanswered. I differentiate citizenship from residency, and accept that children are not yet ready to enter into the full responsibilities of citizenship. The way I would handle it would be to allow the child dual citizenship, but require the child to choose one and renounce the other before voting or being elected to an office.