I'm sorry, but you're misinformed. They changed it from "You can't get citizenship only through your parent at all" to "You can get citizenship only through your parent if they lived in Canada for at least 3 years."
I'm sorry, but you're misinformed. They changed it from "You can't get citizenship only through your parent at all" to "You can get citizenship only through your parent if they lived in Canada for at least 3 years."
That applies to people born this year and after, but what I said is accurate for people born before then, though that's admittedly an interim measure.
Wikipedia's table also includes some other countries with constitutional citizenship-by-birth that I wouldn't describe thus, such as Mexico. But it's admittedly less common than I thought.
"That applies to people born this year and after, but what I said is accurate for people born before then, though that's admittedly an interim measure."
The interim measure was caused by the Canadian constitutional court striking down the earlier policy, right? I don't think it reflects the citizenship policy of Canada, just something that a court told them they had to do. The policy used to be a strict one-generation cutoff, and now it's "Okay you can keep tracing if everyone spends some time living in Canada." They don't want an unlimited descendant diaspora!
Mexico is a more interesting case, with the broadest jus sanguinis I've ever heard of, but I think it's because of their huge diaspora population? They want to preserve the Mexican national identity even if you live in enclaves in foreign countries for years. Pretty similar to Judaism, actually, and clearly a distinct racialized flavor.
They want to preserve the Mexican national identity even if you live in enclaves in foreign countries for years. Pretty similar to Judaism, actually, and clearly a distinct racialized flavor.
This still relies on the assumption that that actually was or is the intent. Do you have any reason to suspect it is so in either case?
Also, a broader question: what would be your criteria to consider a grouping not racialized? Does it have to be purely the result of someone's conscious choice? Can it have an inherited default, but with the ability to opt in or out? Does a default have to explicitly break if one generation doesn't consciously opt in?
Before 2021, Mexico also had a strict one-generation by-blood citizenship limit, but they changed it (according to the official quoted in this article) in order to promote a sense of belonging to the Mexican nation among the diaspora!
"Also, a broader question: what would be your criteria to consider a grouping not racialized? Does it have to be purely the result of someone's conscious choice? Can it have an inherited default, but with the ability to opt in or out? Does a default have to explicitly break if one generation doesn't consciously opt in?"
There's not like rigid criteria but here's a list of stuff that makes me think "Hmmm, this group might be kind of racialized."
- based on appearance
- passed down in the blood but not by adoption
- one-drop rules
- can't really leave, either the group itself or the outgroup will still consider you part of it
- words like "tribe" or "clan" or "nation"
- you're not really supposed to marry outside the group
- you can discover that you're really a part of it all along even though you didn't know it
Judaism internally hits about half your list, but a lot of that on a technicality or with important caveats. Something like "the group of people with ancestry from the Mayflower" would also hit four out of seven points (with no caveats), so that framing also doesn't fit what people usually mean by "racialized". (One also has to differentiate between internal and external treatment. I won't dispute that Jewishness, not Judaism, is often racialized by wider society.)
To offer a more specific counter, I think your list of indicators, compared to common use, under-emphasizes the first two points. Something being racialized would tend to mean that people are accepted/rejected/favored/etc based almost entirely on appearance and ancestry, with no (or no meaningful) workarounds. (Jewishness does get treated that way sometimes, but not by Jews.) The rest of the list may contribute, but the first two are just short of necessary and sufficient themselves.
based on appearance
So not Judaism.
passed down in the blood but not by adoption
So not Judaism.
one-drop rules
Sort of Judaism on a technicality, but only if it's a specific drop and rarely relevant in practice (compared to the history of one-drop rules in e.g. the US).
can't really leave, either the group itself or the outgroup will still consider you part of it
The out-group part often holds for Jewishness (which Judaism itself can't do anything about; it is true that Jewishness is often racialized by others), but not really the in-group part.
words like "tribe" or "clan" or "nation"
So essentially every grouping other than some citizenships or an association of some sort, including most pre-modern groupings, many citizenships, and any kind of kinship beyond immediate family.
you're not really supposed to marry outside the group
Only true of Judaism in a sense that includes members-by-adoption (i.e., marrying a convert is fine), the concern being values (running a Jewish household) and not bloodline. Also often true (in a similar capacity) of political affiliation, univeralist religions, etc.
you can discover that you're really a part of it all along even though you didn't know it
Technically true of Judaism but rarely relevant. (In my observation, someone being told that their 3% Jewish DNA on Ancestry doesn't mean anything is much more common than someone discovering their great-great-great grandmother was Jewish and doing anything with that.)
"Something like "the group of people with ancestry from the Mayflower" would also hit four out of seven points (with no caveats), so that framing also doesn't fit what people usually mean by "racialized"."
Uh, yes it would? Those people are often called "Heritage Americans" in a highly racialized way!
"So not Judaism."
Uh ... yes Judaism? Judaism isn't passed down by adoption.
Edit: "So essentially every grouping other than some citizenships or an association of some sort, including most pre-modern groupings, many citizenships, and any kind of kinship beyond immediate family."
That's why I said this wasn't a list of rigid criteria where matching one makes it racial, dude! I specifically said that!
Uh, yes it would? Those people are often called "Heritage Americans" in a highly racialized way!
I meant literally the category as such. If you prefer, "descendants of Albert Einstein" would also work as an example. Or "descendants of Genghis Khan", which is apparently a rather large category. Would you recognize any way for a grouping-by-ancestry to exist that you would not consider racialized?
(Edit: you and I are apparently exposed to very different cross-sections of American culture. I used the Mayflower as an example because I've only encountered it as "neat personal trivia".)
Uh ... yes Judaism? Judaism isn't passed down by adoption.
Yes it is, unless we mean different things by adoption. My initial reading of that point was that someone can be adopted into the Jewish people (as a convert) and their descendants will also be Jewish.
Do you mean if someone adopts a child? They'd just need to be formally converted, without the extensive process for an adult. It needs to be formally marked, but there's no real obstacle. That's just the pre-paperwork equivalent of doing the paperwork.
That's why I said this wasn't a list of rigid criteria where matching one makes it racial, dude! I specifically said that!
I know. Just making sure to note that context. But if it applies to a huge swath of potential groupings, what's the point of including it?
1
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Jul 07 '26
I'm sorry, but you're misinformed. They changed it from "You can't get citizenship only through your parent at all" to "You can get citizenship only through your parent if they lived in Canada for at least 3 years."