Document Type
Book Chapter
Publication Date
2018
Editor(s)
Rainer Bauböck
ISSN
9783319927190
Publisher
Springer
Language
en-US
Abstract
Costica Dumbrava maintains that ius sanguinis citizenship is a historically tainted, outmoded, and unnecessary means of designating political membership. He argues that it is time to abandon it. Dumbrava limits his challenge to ius sanguinis citizenship per se, and even suggests that family-based migration rights could be used to minimise the disruptive effect of abolishing citizenship-by-descent. But his core complaints about ius sanguinis citizenship – the mismatch of biological parentage and political affinity, the difficulties of determining legal parentage – can be, and have been, levied against these various family-based preferences and statuses, which are likely found in every nation’s nationality laws. It is therefore important to consider his proposal in light of the role that the parent-child relationship plays in the regulation of migration, naturalisation, and citizenship more generally. I also argue that, as a remedy for the problems that he has identified, Dumbrava’s proposal is at once too restrained and too radical.
Recommended Citation
Kristin Collins,
Abolishing Ius Sanguinis Citizenship: A Proposal Too Restrained and Too Radical
,
in
Debating Transformations of National Citizenship
103
(Rainer Bauböck ed.,
2018).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/822
