400 children illegally born in Israel to be deported

Ghastly.

yep

Snert wrote:

Is this particularly different from what would happen to a child born to non-citizen parents in Germany, or Japan, or other country with jus sanguinis nationality laws?

Yes, since Germany doesn't apply jus sanguinis, since 1999, and recognizes anyone born in Germany as a German citizen. 

Try and stay up to date, when engaging in appologia for rank prejudice. What I love about the whole Germany "purity" laws angle, is that this mostly stems from post war legislation put into place to give ethnic Germans who were living as refugees in Germany after being ethnically cleansed from other European nations, after WWII, a basis for claiming citizenship, not to preference people of German decent. There were swarms of ethnic German refugees after, who had to be given a basis for citizenship because they were made stateless.

Most of this legislation has been removed over the years, as the problem it was intended to resolve. ethnic German refugees, being expelled from their country of origin, is not longer a problem.

 In other words, your talking points are 60 years out of date. Try something which requires a moral spine, or something.

Is there any need to try and defend this crap?

Cueball, that still means that children born in Germany will not be granted citizenship automatically.  What you're quoting is a sort of 'grandfather' clause.

Even in Canada, there are a few  people a year who lose their Canadian citizenship, because they were born outside of Canada to foreign parents who never became Canadian citizens.  They have Canadian permanent residency up until their 18th birthday, but must then apply for citizenship, or face losing their status altogether. All that to say, citizenship is a mess, and even more complicated when it is so policy driven.

Snert wrote:

Is this particularly different from what would happen to a child born to non-citizen parents in Germany, or Japan, or other country with jus sanguinis nationality laws?

remind wrote:

yep

How exactly?

Irregular migrants and even asylym seekers are routinely confined or deported (children included) from [url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/germ-m18.shtml]Germany[/url] (1300 deported from Hamburg alone in 2008).  [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/16/AR201001... deports children who were born there too. Many nations do not grant citizenship upon birth (jus soli).

I absolutely disagree with this, regardless of who is doing it, but your comment was perplexingly flippant.

Edit: Jus sanguinis is 'right by blood', generally to citizenship.  Countries who have jus sanguinis laws grant citizenship based on parentage, not where you were born.  They may have other requirements (being able to speak functional German, having some connection to the home country, etc).  Jus soli means 'right by soil', and is citizenship based on where you're born.  The United Nation Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has a right to a nationality, but where Jus sanguinis and Jus soli collide, you can have people with no citizenship whatsoever...born in a country with jus sanguinis, to parents from a country with jus soli.

Is there a thread on US  terror babies?

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Is there a thread on US  terror babies?

Yeah, I thought of the recent frenzy to the south about "anchor babies" (the travesty on which the farce of terror babies is built) when I read this thread. I think both Snert and remind are right to point out that this policy is far from unique to Israel, but what is unique, as Unionist points out, is the unapologetic, unabashed racist language employed by the state of Israel. None of the usual platitudes to fair play ("they're jumping the queue," "there's a legal way to obtain citizenship"); simply: we have to protect the bloodline. Say no to miscegenation.

The rest of it looks pretty much the same. Xenophobic fearmongering (if we let one in, we'll have to let in the millions and millions of other poor brown folk waiting in the wings--and when they come a floodin', they'll be laughing at our naivété!), handwringing, tear-jerking performance (of course our hearts go out to these poor folk, but our hands are tied!) and other racist talk dressed in language of the state (they're simply not Israeli).

Yiwah wrote:

...but your comment was perplexingly flippant.

pardon me, I did not realize apologists/justifications for racism required more than a flip answer. I will do better next time, and just call it for what it was/is.

I see your comment as  an apology for racism actions, was not calling you a racist. Edited my comment for clarity.

Unionist wrote:

I'm rather amazed at the juridical turn this thread has taken.

Laws surrounding migration and citizenship are at the heart of this topic.  Migration/citizenship laws tend to be some of the most policy-driven legislative regimes out there.

Unionist wrote:

Let me state my viewpoint. I do not believe that people are entitled to citizenship just because they happen to be born at the moment their mother is visiting or even working in a particular country. Nor do I see any "moral" issue involved. States have the right to determine immigration and citizenship policies.

I disagree, in that I believe there is a strong moral issue involved.  I do not have a template for 'the perfect policy', but basic human rights should be respected in any migration policy, and quite often, those human rights are denied, on the basis that the rights in question should only apply to citizens.  I agree that states have some right to determine their citizenship and immigration policies...but not absolute rights.  I believe that at a minimum, there should be some real way to gain citizenship.  Some countries make that completely impossible, and it creates a guaranteed system of labour exploitation and denial of rights.

Unionist wrote:

Where I personally draw the line is at racism, exploitation, and apartheid.

That can be a difficult line to see, especially if the platitudes are couched in less obviously discriminatory ways.  I think it was Catchfire that provided a fairly good list of some of the more common ones.  I think it's important to listen to the words, but also look at the impact.

Unionist wrote:

Thus, I see the purest criminality and evil in Israel exiling Palestinian natives; importing them back as cheap terrorized labour when it suits their purposes; barring them from work when it suits their newer purposes; importing cheap exploitable labour from China, Africa, and South-East Asia to replace the expelled native population; then deporting their children who were born and have lived in Israel for years, explicitly citing the need to preserve "the Jewish character of the state".

I think it would be just as awful if they'd had some PR fellow write up a nice 'protecting the public wellbeing' speech.

Unionist wrote:

The Zionists and their partners-in-crime are fond of trying to whitewash their murderous apartheid actions by whining, "Why single out Israel?" One need look no further than Israel's actions to understand who is singling out Israel.

What really impresses me about this story is the number of Jews - loyal and devoted supporters of Israel and Zionism - who have stood up and said, "Such treatment of these children is not Jewish. This is not the kind of Israel I thought we were building." It's amazing how blind people can be, when they understand only their own oppression, but not that of anyone else.

I'm glad people are speaking up...it's sad though that it takes that most heartstring tuggingly issue...children...to do it.

Unionist wrote:

Snert wrote:

Sorry, but the truth isn't "racist". I simply pointed out that other countries also have a policy of not granting citizenship to children of non-citizens upon birth. Labelling that as "racist" is pretty bold (and, IMHO, uncalled for)

Snert, you have read nothing about the debate going on in Israel on this issue - that's obvious - and it has been under discussion and consideration for [b]months[/b].

Israel has no "policy of not granting citizenship to children of non-citizens upon birth".

In fact, Israel has a policy of [b]granting instant citizenship to all Jews upon entry - whether by birth or otherwise[/b].

The attempts in this thread to strip the dirty racist essence off this action and compare it, from some purely juridical angle, to policies of other sovereign states are puzzling.

I'm confused.

Isreal has a law of return...for Jews, yes? This isn't jus sanguinis, it's a specific 'unique' form of citizenship limited to a particular group.

Jus sanguinis applies to those born Israeli citizens, at home or abroad.

You can be naturalised...but there does not appear to be any citizenship granted by birth on Israeli soil, if your parents are not citizens...

So while Israel grants 'instant citizenship' to Jews, the issue here appears to be what Israel does in relation to non-Jews.  In which case it does appear they have a policy of not granting citizenship to children of non-citizens upon birth, for everyone who is not a Jew.

Cueball wrote:

 

No because Germany and Japan do not simply award citizenship to persons on the basis of "blood" at the exclusion of anyone else.

Neither does Israel.  But naturalisation is apparently extremely difficult in Israel and Japan.  Not sure about the situation in Germany.

HOWEVER, once again, we aren't even discussing the lucky ones who become naturalised citizens...the issue are the non-naturalised migrants, who are denied rights in all three nations, even if born there.

The reasons for which, whether openly racist/xenophobic, or hidden in the 'common good', end up with the same results.  I also have serious doubts about a moral difference, regardless of the rhetoric.

That's not to say Israel is morally on equal footing with Germany or Japan, mind you.  Only that even the 'progressive' nations tend to treat irregular migrants like shit.

Snert wrote:

And I find attempts to compare a full hijab with a wimple to be puzzling, but what can I do about it?

 

Quote:

Israel has no "policy of not granting citizenship to children of non-citizens upon birth".

In fact, Israel has a policy of granting instant citizenship to all Jews upon entry - whether by birth or otherwise.

 

And Germany will grant German citizenship to ethnic Germans from Switzerland, Russia, etc.

 

Would it square the circle if we were to all just agree that Israel, Germany and Japan are all dirty racists? Or do you think that Germany and Japan basically share Israel's citizenship policy, except that they do it for some kind of noble reason?

 

I have to believe that if I were to assert that "Cuba is evil because they require young people in love to purchase and abide by a [i]licence of marriage[/i] which is clearly an attempt to control and repress the love between two people" we would end up discussing other countries — like Canada — who do the same. And why not? If it were evidence of Cuban evil, why would it not also be evidence of our own evil?

No because Germany and Japan do not simply award citizenship to persons on the basis of "blood" at the exclusion of anyone else. They also allow immigration on many other grounds. Furthermore, Germany does not grant citizenship on the basis of "ethnicity", it awards citizenship on the basis of the citizenship of ones parents, regardless of their ethnic heritage.

In other words, the German citizenship are based in the objective facts of the citizenship of ones parents, not their ethnicity.

Please point to which law in Germany or Japan that says that one must be of German or Japanese ethnicity to become a citizen of either?

Both indeed provide numerous avenues for admission above and beyond ethnicity. In Germany you can become a citizen by birth, even if neither of your parents are citizens.

German citizenship laws that previously allowed citizenship on the basis of ethnicity were instituted in order to allow non-Germans citizens, who were living as refugees in Germany after the war to attain citizenship, because there was a huge number of stateless "ethnic" Germans who had been ethnically cleansed from all over Europe. Creating a citizenship law that recognized them as citizens allowed them to become citizens.

What were they supposed to do? Deport them back to Czechoslovakia?

So no, Germany does not allow "ethnic Germans from Switzerland, Russia", not unless they have parents held German citizenship. Those laws were repealed gradually after the post war refugee crisis ended.

Here is the Japanese policy on Naturalization:

Quote:

Condition for Naturalization

* have continually resided in Japan for 5 years or more;
* be at least 20 years of age, and must be recognized as having legal capacity under law the laws governing your country;
* have good conduct;
* be able to maintain your living either on your assets or skills or of that of your spouse, children, or other members of your country;
* not hold a nationality of any other country; or, on acquiring Japanese nationality, will renounce the other nationality; (There are some exceptions)
* never have plotted or advocated the violent destruction of the Japanese government, or have formed or belonged to political party or organization with this aim.

# Exception

You do not need to satisfy the condition 1 (5 years residence requirement) above, if you have an address in Japan and you satisfy one of the following requirements:

1. you are a child of former Japanese national ( excludes adopted children), and have continually resided in, or have had a dwelling in Japan for at least 3 years.
2. you ware born in Japan, and have continually resided in or have had a dwelling in Japan for at 3 years; or you have a parent ( excludes adopted parents ) who wan born in Japan.
3. you have had a dwelling in Japan for at least 10 years.

# If you fall under one of the following categories, you can be granted naturalization by the Minister of Justice without having satisfied either condition 1 ( 5 years residency requirement ) or 2 ( capacity to act );

1. you are a spouse of Japanese national, have had an address or dwelling in Japan for at least 3 years, and you presently reside in Japan;
2. you are a spouse of a Japanese national, at least 3 years have passed from the day of marriage (marriage registration date), and you have had an address in Japan for at least one year during this period.

# You may be granted naturalization by the Minister of Justice without having satisfied either conditions 1 ( 5 years residency requirement ) or 2 ( capacity or act ) or 4 (maintain living ) if you fall under one of the following categories;

1. you are the child of Japanese national ( excludes adopted children ) and have an address in Japan;
2. you are the adopted child of a Japanese national, were a minor at the time of adoption, and have had an address in Japan for at least one continuous year;
3. you have lost Japanese nationality but still have and address in Japan;
4. you were born in Japan, have had no nationality since the time of birth, and have continuously and an address in Japan for at least 3 years after birth.

I believe, but can not say for sure, that the bolded text would cover the children of foreign guest workers being discussed in this article.

source

Quote:

 Applications for non-Jews is entirely discretionary at the whim of the Ministry of the Interior.

Quote:

The Minister of Justice must approve all applications for naturalization. Review of an application generally takes about one year.
The criteria for naturalization are provided in Article 5 of the Nationality Act:

1. Continuous residence in Japan for five years or more
2. At least 20 years old and otherwise legally competent
3. History of good behavior generally, and no past history of seditious behavior
4. Sufficient capital or skills, either personally or within family, to support oneself
5. Stateless or willing to renounce foreign citizenship

In Germany one must apply for naturalization, which sort of suggests that in Germany too, it's at the "whim" of the government.

Were you going somewhere with this?

Quote:

I believe, but can not say for sure, that the bolded text would cover the children of foreign guest workers being discussed in this article.

Only if their parents had no citizenship, or were citizens of a state that did not recognize the citizenship of their children.

Were I to have been born in Japan, this would not have applied to me as I had the same Canadian citizenship my parents had.

Unionist wrote:

Israel was founded by expelling hundreds of thousands of (mostly) non-Jewish Arab inhabitants.

Israel grants instant entry and citizenship to Jews (except for those who are publicly anti-Zionist).

Israel is now once again expelling non-Jews born there - [b]as they did in 1948[/b].

This has nothing to do with migration policies. This is - as Netanyahu said - about "Zionist considerations and preserving the Jewish character of Israel".

These actions are indeed comparable to those of Germany and Japan - at a time when the entire world was fighting to eliminate these scourges from the face of the earth. Israel too, as presently constituted, will suffer the same fate - hopefully by peaceful and nonviolent means, such as BDS, regime change, and negotiation.

 

Has Israel had a policy of not expelling irregular migrants before this?  I cannot find any information, as the pages are clogged up with this particular story.  I would, however, find it rather extraordinary if Israel has not deported irregular migrants in all the years since the creation of that nation state.  I can't think of a single nation state that does not have a deportation policy.

What appears to make this situation different is that this time, they are also deporting children.  However, the [url=http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1320717/Leave-or-be-deported,-familie... of children[/url] does not always get a lot of attention, despite the fact that a lot more of it goes on than most people are aware.

Deportation policies often talk about preserving culture, whether we're discussing Australia's heinous record on that front, or Israel's. And even when they couch it in 'nicer' terms, it's still usually based on xenophobia.  You also see a sharp rise in the racist rhetoric when economic times are tough.

I'm not sure what you mean by this though:

"These actions are indeed comparable to those of Germany and Japan - at a time when the entire world was fighting to eliminate these scourges from the face of the earth. Israel too, as presently constituted, will suffer the same fate - hopefully by peaceful and nonviolent means, such as BDS, regime change, and negotiation."

Germany and Japan have these restrictive policies right now.  What makes their approach any less problematic?  They aren't currently involved in mass deportations...but comb the news and you'll find some recent examples.  Or just read the link I provided...in particular this, happening in the UK:

"In July, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg told MPs it was a "moral outrage" the previous Labour government locked up 1000 children "who were innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever".

The Yarl's Wood site in Bedfordshire holds people awaiting deportation but has been strongly criticised over reports children have been denied medical treatment, subjected to violence and forced to undress in front of officers of the opposite sex."

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Catchfire #19

Agreed. I think the difference is a matter of degrees (in that they are actually trying to justify it as official policy).

Okay, thank you, this is what I am not understanding.

ALL nations defend their particular migration policies as an official policy...because they are official policies.  The rhetoric OFTEN becomes extremely racist and xenophobic, and I'm not talking about the average Joe, I'm referring to politicians making public statements.

In terms of a matter of degrees, the sharp reversal in the UNofficial policy of not deporting the children of migrant workers is worriesome.  The number of children potentially impacted is significant.

However, that is how these issues work.  Political pressure leads to a ramping up in the rhetoric, changes are made to policies or policies are more strictly enforced, and you have another humanitarian crisis.  In Australia.  Or the UK.  Or Canada, or wherever.

All of which serve to bolster political support among the racists and is a tried-and-true political ploy in bad economic times.  It's disgusting, no matter who does it, and what justifications they provide.[/QUOTE]

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And I don't want to be accused of Quebec bashing, because I know white racism and the pretense of defense is just as strong here, but the concept of "pure laine" is a perfect example of racism in a structured form. I think the only reason why it is more visible in Quebec is because francophone culture it itself surrounded and threatened in some ways.

If not already a thing of the past, it's certainly heading there fast.  Quebec's issues with racism aren't all that different with the rest of Canada's issues with racism.

Unionist wrote:

Why would you want to link to a website that is not only pro-Zionist, but promotes Greater Israel, annexing the Occupied Territories, and talks of the Ground Zero issue in terms like, "We Must Not Give In to Islamic Supremacists"?

I don't really care about the website.  If the information is inaccurate, I have no problem being corrected.  I'm searching things rather quickly, with faith that if I am wrong about naturalisation issues, someone with more knowledge will correct me.

Unionist wrote:

Anyway, what I find more offensive is the attempt to whitewash this crime, which even Netanyahu's wife had to oppose publicly, by saying that well, others do it to.

How is discussing this 'whitewashing' it?

Again, what is it you want?  Should topics on Israel be relegated to the deafening silence of agreement?  Because once more, not a single person here has supported their actions.  Nor do I agree that bringing up the abysmal migration policies of other nations in any way minimises what Israel is doing.

What I personally object to is the notion that Israel doing this is somehow so much more super bad than others doing the same thing.  it is bad, it is wrong, and it remains bad and wrong regardless of the platitudes mouthed by politicians directly involved in these kinds of deportations.  Whether invoking the 'economy' or whipping people up into xenophobic frenzy over Zionisim the result is the denial of human rights.

If we cannot discuss the wider issue of migration policies, what are we supposed to talk about in this thread?  Just post a one liner saying 'what the fuck is wrong with Israel!?'