Dear Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs,

At its core Birth right citizenship is foreign to Africans or traditional laws, this law was imposed by colonisers as way to dilute local citizens and tribes and also import more slaves or laborers in order to be more competitive against other Euro nations (e.g Indian Slaves in Durban) more labour force, more work, output & more money principle. The experience of colonialism, which traumatized African populations in many forms, reveals the importance of the public law education system imposed by the colonizer, a system based on properly British notions, gradually transformed by socio-economic development and economical growth by using foreign labours after the end of slavery. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41803084?seq=1).

The American form of birthright citizenship, which is guaranteed in the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, is “clearly rooted in Roman and English legal principles, many of which were fueled by expansionist territorial ambitions coupled with mercantile economies,” Which is also the reason why its mainly practiced in only 30 countries world wide and predominantly in heavy migrant countries North America and South America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Americas_2) and former colonisers. “Records from the 39th U.S. Congress in 1866 clearly show that the birthright citizenship debate centered on the labor utility of foreigners and their children in spurring economic development. Subsequently, Congress enacted this right in the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868. It was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898, and nothing of legal significance has changed since then.”… from A south African point of view there is no case to increase labour, yet the government does not want to limit immigration flows or at least strongly deter it by imposing current laws.

Explanations for the concentration of birthright citizenship in the Americas (South And North) range from European colonial powers establishing lenient laws to attract immigrants and displace native populations in the New World to Latin American independence movements that embraced a more expansive definition of citizenship as part of their rejection of slavery in the 19th century. (The Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, likewise conferred citizenship on freed slaves in the United States.) (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/aug/23/se-cupp/se-cupp-only-about-30-other-countries-offer-birthr/).... Birthright citizenship in the United States was first made law by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, primarily to grant legal status to emancipated slaves. But this imperialist still needed labourer (nice way of saying slaves) hence the weak lenient citizenship laws.

Birth right and pro immigration was set in motion by colonisers to increase production outputs and organised laborers across their colonies and gain power politcaly (in some cases its enough to win a district or municipality e.g US)… this clearly is against current South Africa growth and economic ambitions… reason for xenophobic attacks, main issues is jobs and economic opportunities... and clear relations between foreign blacks and local white associations… in academics and many industries… So why does birthright citizenship literally divide the world? One main explanation will always be colonialism, said John Skrentny, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego. As European countries colonized the Americas and Africa, Skrentny said, many created lenient naturalization laws in order to grow and overpower native populations. "Getting people to move in was a good way to establish authority," he said.

The meaning of BBBEE, or land claims will be of no consequences when this children are of age and act politically – place a dent on South Africa long term development plan…

There is a trend in some countries toward restricting Jus soli by requiring that at least one of the child's parents be a citizen, national or legal permanent resident of the state in question at time of the child's birth.( https://muse.jhu.edu/article/249048 ) Modification of jus soli has been criticized as contributing to economic inequality, the perpetuation of unfree labour from a helot underclass. Italy, like the U.K. and Germany, also restricts citizenship by birth to those born to at least one Italian parent. (https://www.esteri.it/mae/en/servizi/stranieri/cittadinanza_0.html)... The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years: Australia (2007), New Zealand (2005), Ireland (2005), France (1993), India (1987), Malta (1989), UK (1983) & Portugal (1981) (https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html)

Plenty of countries (85% of all countries use Jus Sanguinis principles—China, Japan, Russia, South Korea—grant citizenship strictly on the basis of whether a baby has at least one parent who is a citizen of the country, as opposed to where the baby is born. But Gulf countries boast some of the most solid naturalization processes, like many African counties citizenship is only given via the male citizen, this protects females as well… and also minimises xenophobic tensions specially in places like Africa where females are caressed into scam marriages more likely than males (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis) (page 49 table 3 https://books.google.co.za/books?id=xKhONykaQKYC&pg=PA46&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false) . The most common application of jus sanguinis is a right of a child to his / her father’s nationality especially in Africa where it has proved to protect native females. Some countries extend this right on an equal basis to the mother. Some apply this right irrespective of the place of birth, while others may limit to those born in the state. Some countries provide that a child acquires the nationality of the mother if the father is unknown or stateless, and some irrespective of the place of birth. Some such children may acquire the nationality automatically while others may need to apply for a parent’s nationality.

We suggest to amend the constitution to not have this regulation… reverse what the colonizers where trying to do with it. If there are no options for it, other departments such as treasury, national security, social development, department of labour must have a hand in approval… and it cant be applicable to hostile countries with heavy Musliim beliefs (terrorism propensity increases)… or don’t have similar law.. stateless individuals should deported back to their home or evenly distributed globally via the UN or another group…