While I strongly dislike Trump's racially biased reasoning for challenging the birthright to citizenship, I find that I actually agree with the idea.
The piece of land a person is born on has absolutely no influence on who they become as a person, and should never be used as reasoning for what rights they are or are not entitled to. This is an archaic rule with illogical reasoning, and by all rights it should be abolished or at the very least altered.
I could not disagree more.
The idea of birthright citizenship is to avoid a long-term dispossessed class of people. There are many people in many countries who've lived in a place - for generations! - without having rights. These people become a sort of permanent stateless underclass who are disenfranchised and live with in perpetual fear. And they always live with the specter of the Jews, or for a modern example, the Rohingya. The specter of the statelessness crisis haunted the 20th century; I would rather that that ghost remain to haunt the past rather than the present.
I have no outstanding objections to national borders...my issue is simply with classifying people based on which side of the border a person happens to be born on. Someone could be born in the USA, immediately removed and grow up somewhere else, then return one day and be legally considered as American as anyone else.
The point is that it doesn't actually matter what you sympathize with and care about. Your formative years are irrelevant because being a citizenship doesn't mean you
like your government, it means your government is
obligated to you. The simple fact is the less automatic someone's rights are, the more we can assume that those rights will be curtailed. It's happened with voting, god help us if it happens to citizenship.
The point of birthplace citizenship is that everyone (or at least the vast majority of people) are born
somewhere, and
jus solis means that at least some state on this earth will be responsible for them. If people have to
apply for their rights like in this unintentional dystopia you've created, there will be many people who have
no rights, most likely because a state will say they don't want them. And if the two countries a person grew up in don't want them, then what? You'll say "well there'll be laws to avoid this", to which I say there will be no international legal obligation to make sure that no one falls through the cracks, meaning people will.