Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 September 24

= September 24 =

What is the citzenship of the son of a jus solis mother born at a jus sanguinis country?
Imagine a baby is born at jus sanguinis country X, and his mother was born (and is citizen of) a jus solis country Y. What would happen at that situation?

The country of his mother is jus solis, this means he wont get citizenship at country Y for being the son of some country Y citizen, at the same time he wont get citizenship at country Y unless he was born at country X and that was not the case.177.92.128.62 (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It probably depends on the specific citizenship laws of the specific countries in question. Jus solis and jus sanguinis are broad classifications of the types of citizenship laws that exist, but laws themselves are more detailed and nuanced, and you would need the specific text of the specific law in the specific country to be able to determine an answer to your question.  -- Jayron 32 13:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Although 177.92.128.62, if browsing a few different examples might help, you could a look at the Statelessness article. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed the OP didn't mention the father, but this can also be or relevance depending on the citizenship of the father and in some cases whether the child was born in wedlock. Anyway putting that aside, for the general question of particular relevance here may be the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness which aims to require signatories allow both as a safeguard against statelessness. [//www.unhcr.org/ibelong/wp-content/uploads/1961-Convention-on-the-reduction-of-Statelessness_ENG.pdf] [//www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/hrc/regularsessions/session25/documents/a-hrc-25-28_en.doc] As I understand the convention (i.e. this isn't legal advice which makes no sense for a UN convention anyway), it effectively gives precedence to where the child ends up habitually residing. However the citizenship doesn't have to be automatic, it may require an application which may may need to be made before a certain age (and sometimes after a certain age), along with the residence requirements and an absence of certain convictions. To be clear, the convention is intended to established fall-back provisions and minimum standards. Signatories can go beyond the minimums but also since it's only intended to deal with statelessness, a signatory is not required to grant citizenship if the person hasn't always been stateless.  A notable point is as I understand it, if the child ends up residing in a country which is neither that they were born nor where their parents are from, or one that isn't a signatory, there's nothing in the convention stopping them being permanently stateless. Likewise if they don't apply in time or have precluding convictions. As the OHCHR document mentions there can be loopholes and conflicting laws between different states, and even for signatories as for most UN conventions there may be little that can be done if they don't properly apply the treaty.  A perhaps interesting example here is the case of Shamima Begum which demonstrates that even countries which allegedly have good respect for human rights may render someone stateless by removing a citizenship they gave at birth to someone who then went on to spend most of their lives there too, under the theory they may have some other citizenship to a country they never stepped foot in who denies any such claim of citizenship. [//www.bbc.com/news/uk-47312207]  Which is not to deny that general respect for the convention and human rights can help e.g. our article mentions Malaysia has a large number of stateless. Which is partly because it's a reasonably sized somewhat more safe, stable, prosperous and developed country in a region with a lot of countries far worse off. But is also because they aren't a signatory and so even those long term stateless residents born-there often have no chance to apply for citizenship despite an absence of criminal convictions. Obviously this means it can even be a multi-generational problem.  Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've known a few people in this situation (British and American families in Europe), and it's not really a problem. "Jus soli" citizenship laws tend to contain mechanisms for children of citizens to declare nationality if they're born abroad. There are probably some rare situations where it gets a bit more complicated, e.g. according to United States nationality law the American parents have to have actually lived in the US for some time so a US citizen born to one of these families who spent their whole life in a foreign "jus sanguinis" nation state might be at risk of giving birth to a stateless child unless they become a naturalized citizen of their home country. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hurricanes
I just feel as if the reason hurricanes are becoming common lately is because people worry about them more. Any mention of something contrary to this statement in any Wikipedia article?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You can track the number of hurricanes by looking at articles like 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, going through each page of prior years, and looking at how many hurricanes form each year. I know of no mechanism by which people "worrying" can create more Hurricanes, but sources do agree that the number and intensity of hurricanes are both getting worse, see for example  and  for a few examples.  -- Jayron 32 16:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, . It sounds as if you're thinking of a version of the Frequency illusion. But that is countered by examining the actual statistics, as Jayron suggested. --ColinFine (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Atlantic_hurricane mentions two additional things which might factor into people being more aware of or paying more attention to hurricanes (besides the fact that hurricanes are actually indeed more common) . (1) More storms are reaching the highest wind speeds, which means they are more often more destructive and (2) More people are living in coastal regions, which means more people are more often affected. Both those factors would increase media attention. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Changes in Atlantic major hurricane frequency since the late-19th century says:
 * We find that recorded century-scale increases in Atlantic hurricane and major hurricane frequency, and associated decrease in USA hurricanes strike fraction, are consistent with changes in observing practices and not likely a true climate trend. After homogenization, increases in basin-wide hurricane and major hurricane activity since the 1970s are not part of a century-scale increase, but a recovery from a deep minimum in the 1960s–1980s. We suggest internal (e.g., Atlantic multidecadal) climate variability and aerosol-induced mid-to-late-20th century major hurricane frequency reductions have probably masked century-scale greenhouse-gas warming contributions to North Atlantic major hurricane frequency.
 * The same research is cited (a bit more intelligibly) in Hurricanes may not be becoming more frequent, but they’re still more dangerous.
 * Alansplodge (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Tropical cyclones and climate change opens with: Because of climate change, tropical cyclones are likely increasing in intensity, have increased rainfall, and have larger storm surges, but there might be fewer of them globally. Alansplodge (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * British worry led to a lot of Hurricanes being spotted back in 1940. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Five Good Emperors questions
Okay, going off my basic understanding of Roman history, I have the following questions in regards to the Five Good Emperors.
 * 1) As I understand it, the five emperors (+ Lucius Verus) ascended via the adoption of a son, until Commodus, right?
 * 2) I know Commodus's reign is seen as the end of the Pax Romana; have contemporary or modern historians suggested that him being a biological successor (rather than a handpicked adopted son) is partly the cause of this?
 * 3) Was this adoptive son thing a conscious choice (i.e. pick the best candidate and adopt them) or simply necessary because of no male heirs?
 * 4) Has anyone ever noted the perhaps irony that out of all emperors, the son of Marcus Aurelius (i.e. an emperor lauded for his wisdom) failed to raise a capable heir? (or is he not blamed for this?) Aza24 (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Re (1) and (3). All of the first four were succeeded by an adoptive son and none of the first four had legitimate male biological heirs. Nerva was childless (and chosen as Emperor for that reason), Trajan and Hadrian both had childless marriages, Antoninus Pius had four children but the sons died before Antoninus Pius became Emperor. (One surviving daughter married Marcus Aurelius and became the mother of Commodus). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hadrian loved a boyfriend very deeply, did he at least try to save some issue for mid-month to issue some issue?Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)