Tom heathcote

First topic message reminder :

Just been called into Scotland squad, born in Inverness but played age grade for England

Never seen him play, but read he's a 10 which has been a problem for us for ages

Plays for bath and only 20.

What's he like ? Anyone ?

HERSH wrote:IMO he could have been the England fly half in 5 years time, Farrell, Burns, Ford and Heathcoat would have been a good battle for the No 10 shirt.

I think it also means he has no future at Bath which is a shame as it is them that have brought him on.

Cheers Tom, enjoy looking at your Scottish Cap forever wondering if you could have been an England great.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

I was wondering the same about his Bath contract as he is no longer English qualified although as he looks like a very good prospect in a key position so probably happy to live with it. I wonder whether he will feel that he ought to go and play in Scotland rather like Max and Thom Evans did or Alex Grove did briefly?

Hey HERSH, maybe Tom will look at all his England Youth grade caps and wonder if he could have been a Scottish great sooner. You never know!

I think it shows a serious lack of ambition that he has decided that he isn't good enough for England at the grand old age of 20!

HERSH wrote:I think it shows a serious lack of ambition that he has decided that he isn't good enough for England at the grand old age of 20!

That's dodgy ground there HERSH, am I to understand that playing for England is more prestigious than playing for Scotland or Wales or Ireland or maybe New Zealand?

Scotland only has two Pro clubs and the game is on the decline up there, so what do you think?

RubyGuby wrote:Scotland have this strange ruling which allows them to pick players born in Scotland - Its strange but that's the way it is. I prefer the Botha, Barritt system myself, seems fairer

Bit hypocritical of you. Many of the welsh side are part English and you welsh enjoy trying to recruit Englishman for your side - Aaron Jarvis (success), Ben Morgan (failure).

Seriously why all the criticism of Barritt and Botha? They actually play their club rugby in England. They live in England. They toiled away to get selected by England. Botha has been here over 7 years - his rugby was developed in England. Barritt is a uk passport holder and has family connections in England. He could have well become a springbok but chose to cone to England instead. Over 4 years ago.

In contrast Heathcote has seen the easy way out. He realises he would struggle to get in the England side. It's funny this is the first time we hear of his Scottish connection. Heathcote doesn't live in Scotland, he plays for an English club and has represented England at age group lvl.

Brutal but a fair truth in all probability... not necessarily more prestigious but easier than some.... just why Mike Catt, Brad Barritt, Moritz Botha, Matt Stevens chose ENG over the boks.

Out of those 4 above, Mike Catt would have been made a bok...but probabily would have got half the number of caps he ended up with. Barritt may have got a cap or two given inside centre is an area of weakness outside of Frans... otherwise the rest would have been lucky to get a provincal cap.

beshocked

If the boks came running to him Brad would have chosen the boks... but he left because of the emergence of Frans Steyn..... he knew he would find it tough to hold down a provincial starting place let alone get selected for the boks.

At the time the the Sharks signed Adi Jacobs and Frans was becoming the bok no.1 12. He wasn't going to be pushed and when offered an opportunity to probably triple his salary and play test rugby for ENG he jumped ship.

IanBru wrote:The only thing that matters is whether it feels right to the player. That's it.

Agreed, provided it's within the rules.

I think this one is preety easy, if indeed it's true he was born in inverness and lived there for 6 years. I find that easier to get my head round than the 3 year residency rule.

Heathcote clearly feels comfortable playing for scotland, and having been born there and having spent a large chunck of his childhood here by all accounts, who are we to argue.

And in terms of Botha his rugby wasn't developed in ENG.

He left SA as an adult.... but didn't make the grade... his highest level was Currie Cup 1st Division playing for Boland... and if I recall he left because he was cut which in essence means his pro career was over in SA (there is no lower pro level).

Botha is as English as Huckleberry Hound... he's a Boer through and through and will be a Boer till the day he dies. This isn't meant as an insult and deep down without the ENG press on his back he will probably say the same.... just see what happens to him when he retires.... he will pack up his bags and go back to his farm in SA.

Couple of points to some previous posters (don't fancy quoting all of them):

Who's to say Heathcote has "given up" on an England cap, maybe he didn't want an England cap. Do you know him personally and know how he feels? Maybe he has always regarded himself as Scottish and only played age grade for england because that was the option available to him at the time, also I think it ensured bath got funding from the RFU. I don't know his motives, but its a bit much to assume that he's thrown in the towel because he's chosen not to play for England.

This isn't the first time we've heard of him being Scottish qualified, it might be the first time on this forum. However, I was aware he was eligible for Scotland for a while now thanks to the work of a poster on another forum. I think it has actually been mentioned here as well.

I don't see how this can be regarded as poaching, as he was born in Scotland and was here till he was 6/7 I think, he therefore is Scottish. However in the interests of fairness, Edinburgh have just signed a stand off from New Zealand, who was born in England and has not been capped. Fill your boots.

EWT Spoons wrote:Couple of points to some previous posters (don't fancy quoting all of them):

Who's to say Heathcote has "given up" on an England cap, maybe he didn't want an England cap. Do you know him personally and know how he feels? Maybe he has always regarded himself as Scottish and only played age grade for england because that was the option available to him at the time, also I think it ensured bath got funding from the RFU. I don't know his motives, but its a bit much to assume that he's thrown in the towel because he's chosen not to play for England.

This isn't the first time we've heard of him being Scottish qualified, it might be the first time on this forum. However, I was aware he was eligible for Scotland for a while now thanks to the work of a poster on another forum. I think it has actually been mentioned here as well.

I don't see how this can be regarded as poaching, as he was born in Scotland and was here till he was 6/7 I think, he therefore is Scottish. However in the interests of fairness, Edinburgh have just signed a stand off from New Zealand, who was born in England and has not been capped. Fill your boots.

As far as I know, Tom was born in Inverness when his father was posted there in the RAF, and left at about the age of 3. He's about as Scottish as Tom Johnson is German, and Jamie Heaslip is Israeli. There's a difference between being Scottish and Scottish-qualified, which is completely beside the point, because them's the rules and it's his decision to exploit them having been given the chance.

It might be worth quoting the preamble to the IRB regulation.

" The rationale/philosophy of Regulation 8 is to ensure that Players selected
to represent either the senior and next senior fifteen-a-side National
Representative Teams of a Union or a Union’s senior National
Representative Sevens Team have a genuine, close, credible and
established national link with the country of the Union for which they
have been selected."

Heathcote, who was born in Inverness, said: “I am delighted to be called up to the Scotland squad. I’ve always known I was eligible to play for Scotland and I’m grateful to be given this opportunity.”

http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/Bath-Rugby-star-Tom-Heathcote-called-Scotland/story-17370697-detail/story.html

If that's not a rousing endorsement for him feeling Scottish I don't know what is

He's about as Scottish as Waldrum is English (except Waldrum actually chose to move to the country he played for, like Henry Pyrgos

I think there is a real difference between parachuting somone in either with the promise of money or playing internationals and someone who has genuinely moved countries.

Sean Lineen for example - an early kilted Kiwi but he has made Scotland his home and been a good servant of the game here V brendon laney - parachuted in to play internationals and paid a lot - eminently forgettable and put down no roots here at all.

I think the regulations are too lax now in general. It should be what is in your heart what colour of jersey you play in.

TJ wrote:I think there is a real difference between parachuting somone in either with the promise of money or playing internationals and someone who has genuinely moved countries.

Sean Lineen for example - an early kilted Kiwi but he has made Scotland his home and been a good servant of the game here V brendon laney - parachuted in to play internationals and paid a lot - eminently forgettable and put down no roots here at all.

I think the regulations are too lax now in general. It should be what is in your heart what colour of jersey you play in.

Very true. But that is impossible to regulate. Unless we cut players in half and see what colour they bleed (Wales will be getting plenty of players).

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:I think there is a real difference between parachuting somone in either with the promise of money or playing internationals and someone who has genuinely moved countries.

Sean Lineen for example - an early kilted Kiwi but he has made Scotland his home and been a good servant of the game here V brendon laney - parachuted in to play internationals and paid a lot - eminently forgettable and put down no roots here at all.

I think the regulations are too lax now in general. It should be what is in your heart what colour of jersey you play in.

Very true. But that is impossible to regulate. Unless we cut players in half and see what colour they bleed (Wales will be getting plenty of players).

Indeed.. I think 5 years residency or 3 if under 17 when moved. One grandparent not enough - a parent or more than one grandparent or born in the country or preferably plus some strong link to the country.

alive555 wrote:Just been called into Scotland squad, born in Inverness but played age grade for England

Never seen him play, but read he's a 10 which has been a problem for us for ages

Plays for bath and only 20.

What's he like ? Anyone ?

I'll ignore the debate on who he should and shouldn't play for and answer the original question.

He's very good. If it were down to me he'd be Bath's first choice out-half, unfortunately it isn't, so Donald gets the nod when he can be arsed to be fit.

Heathcote is a very mature 20 year old, he plays heads-up rugby and distributes very well, he sometimes kicks too often when opposition defense gets in his face as he plays quite flat and doesn't have great centres outside him at Bath.

He can get a back line moving and he's more than capable of making the breaks himself, his defence is not outstanding but neither is it weak.

He kicks very well from the tee and has great cojones when it comes to the pressure kicks.

He has the potential to become a great Bath 10 and I'm sure playing for Scotland will help him in his personal development no end, my only reservation is that the SRFU will persuade him to move to Scotland and another great 10 will be missed by Bath Rugby.

Personally, I'd say congratulations on the call up Tom, good luck, play well but above all, come home safe kidda.

I don't see what the problem people have with Tom Heathcote playing for Scotland. He was born in Inverness, lived there for the first few years of his life in Findhorn which is just a couple miles north of Kinloss. He still has friends and family there I think.
Some of the arguments people are making are ridiculous, he is not the first player to player JUNIOR grade rugby for one country and then play SENIOR rugby for another.
Tom Palmer the england 2nd row played all his youth rugby for Scotland having moved to Edinburgh as a young kid but obviously chose England at senior level.
What is the difference between him and Tom Palmer?
There are many other instances where this has happened too.

At the end of the day he was born in Scotland!

Just because he was educated in England doesn't make any difference at all, he wouldn't have had any choice where he was brought up especially as his father was in the RAF!!

If like many are saying that you should only play for the country you received your rugby "Education" then that would open the floodgates for national unions importing lots of promising youngsters from wherever to train them up to play international rugby for a country they have no links with!!

Majestic83 wrote:I don't see what the problem people have with Tom Heathcote playing for Scotland. He was born in Inverness, lived there for the first few years of his life in Findhorn which is just a couple miles north of Kinloss. He still has friends and family there I think.

I bet he feels as Scottish as Steve Shingler...

Morgannwg wrote:

Majestic83 wrote:I don't see what the problem people have with Tom Heathcote playing for Scotland. He was born in Inverness, lived there for the first few years of his life in Findhorn which is just a couple miles north of Kinloss. He still has friends and family there I think.

I bet he feels as Scottish as Steve Shingler...

How do you know, do you know him personally?

I don't know either, but I do find it funny when Scottish posters on here say 'he could feel scottish' despite neither of the boys living there or playing there. I would just put a wager on him wanting an international career (like Shingler). He could be an England 10 one day, but would have to beat off competition from another 5 vying for the same position. Must have been too much pressure.

Just because you don't live somewhere doesn't mean that you can't feel as if you are from that country. I am half Scottish and half Polish due to my fathers parents being from Poland. I have never lived there apart from being on holiday there a couple times yet still feel proud of my roots and an allegiance to there as well as obviously being a proud Scot.

Majestic83 wrote:Just because you don't live somewhere doesn't mean that you can't feel as if you are from that country. I am half Scottish and half Polish due to my fathers parents being from Poland. I have never lived there apart from being on holiday there a couple times yet still feel proud of my roots and an allegiance to there as well as obviously being a proud Scot.

Well said Sir

I think this selection sends out the wrong message however - Scott Wight at Glasgow Warriors and Harry Leonard at Edinburgh should at least be tried first. I saw Heathcote first hand at Firhill in the Heino last season and while he kicked consistently and accurately he was otherwise steady at FH. Bearing in mind Duncan Weir is apparently fit again at the Warriors so should be ready for the 6Ns. Chick Chalmers was interviewed for The Hootsman today and he thinks Heathcote's selection is a poor move.

Basically Robinson does not get it up here (Glasgow - I think, broadly, Edinburgh supporters like him) and he never will - he remains despised re his role in Lineen's sacking at Glasgow and short of winning the World Cup and 6Ns in the same year will remain so.

TJ wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

TJ wrote:I think there is a real difference between parachuting somone in either with the promise of money or playing internationals and someone who has genuinely moved countries.

Sean Lineen for example - an early kilted Kiwi but he has made Scotland his home and been a good servant of the game here V brendon laney - parachuted in to play internationals and paid a lot - eminently forgettable and put down no roots here at all.

I think the regulations are too lax now in general. It should be what is in your heart what colour of jersey you play in.

Very true. But that is impossible to regulate. Unless we cut players in half and see what colour they bleed (Wales will be getting plenty of players).

Indeed.. I think 5 years residency or 3 if under 17 when moved. One grandparent not enough - a parent or more than one grandparent or born in the country or preferably plus some strong link to the country.

They certainly seem to be the most sensible changes that have been mooted, at least in the first instance. I personally think that place of birth should be removed. Players shouldn't qualify for a country just because they happened to be born there. If they lived there for a few years then that's fine. But if someone happened to be born somewhere due to parents work and then they moved away almost immediately they shouldn't qualify for that country. Nothing to do with this case. I don't know how long Heathcote lived in Scotland nor where his parents are from.

All thes people who now all of sudden believe that you shouldnt qualify for the country of your birth, why have you never voiced this opinion before?

RubyGuby wrote:If you spend the first 6 years of your life in a particular country I can assure you it will play a significant part in you personality and your sense of identity.

I know plenty of people who started life abroad, moved back around that age, and have absolutely no interest in the country they were born in, even if they have a passport. A lot of it will depend on his parents etc. Not knowing the facts of this case I wouldn't come down on either side, but I tend to agree that birthplace is a grossly overrated indicator of identity. If he genuinely feels Scottish for whatever reason (family background for example) then good luck to him, but I don't like it when people talk as if just being born somewhere is particularly indicative of who you are, because there are so many clear counter-examples to that.

Imperialbigdave wrote:All thes people who now all of sudden believe that you shouldnt qualify for the country of your birth, why have you never voiced this opinion before?

I have, several times.

It's getting a bit silly and ridiculous now people saying you shouldn't qualify for the country you were born in.
Should we just scrap international rugby to avoid any confusion on who can play for who??

Majestic83 wrote:It's getting a bit silly and ridiculous now people saying you shouldn't qualify for the country you were born in.
Should we just scrap international rugby to avoid any confusion on who can play for who??

+1

For all the reasons against allowing someone to play for a country and nowadays there are a number of examples. For people to have an issue with someone playing for the land of their birth is bizarre!

HERSH wrote:It just doesn't feel right to me.

That's a shame

HammerofThunor wrote:

Heathcote, who was born in Inverness, said: “I am delighted to be called up to the Scotland squad. I’ve always known I was eligible to play for Scotland and I’m grateful to be given this opportunity.”

http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/Bath-Rugby-star-Tom-Heathcote-called-Scotland/story-17370697-detail/story.html

If that's not a rousing endorsement for him feeling Scottish I don't know what is

He's about as Scottish as Waldrum is English (except Waldrum actually chose to move to the country he played for, like Henry Pyrgos

I think his quote is pretty telling with regards to any past Scottish allegiance.

But to the original question, he is a very good player, he can control a game pretty well and has a good boot on him. He is probably more solid than a flair player. Long term if he stays injury free I think he should win a good number of caps, selfishly I just wish it was for England!

From a bath point of view, he has just signed a 3 year contract so I hope he will hang around and be the player we build the backline around. He can lift share with robbo up to Scotland!

A general issue, Bath have clearly spent money on him training him in the academy and received money from the RFU for producing English talent. By Sunday he will be counted as a foreigner and won't count towards Baths English player total, therefore making it harder to get the funding. Clearly it's just hardluck Bath but it does stick in the throat a bit...

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

HERSH wrote:It just doesn't feel right to me.

That's a shame

Try not to let it worry you too much

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

Majestic83 wrote:It's getting a bit silly and ridiculous now people saying you shouldn't qualify for the country you were born in.
Should we just scrap international rugby to avoid any confusion on who can play for who??

+1

For all the reasons against allowing someone to play for a country and nowadays there are a number of examples. For people to have an issue with someone playing for the land of their birth is bizarre!

Theoretical case. Someone moves to Germany due to Military work. They're there for 2 years before moving back to their own country. In that time they have a kid. None of their family are from Germany, the kid lived in Germany for a year before moving away. You think it's ridiculous/bizarre (to both posters) that their eligibility is questioned?

Let's say the above kid moved to another country (France) instead of back to their parents country, they live there from the age of 1 to the age of 18 before moving back to their parents home country. They would qualify for Germany even their only tie is that they happened to be born there. They wouldn't be eligible for France even though they were raised there. They would still be eligible for their parent country.

That is ridiculous and bizarre (and not even that uncommon due to military movements).

HammerofThunor wrote:

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

Majestic83 wrote:It's getting a bit silly and ridiculous now people saying you shouldn't qualify for the country you were born in.
Should we just scrap international rugby to avoid any confusion on who can play for who??

+1

For all the reasons against allowing someone to play for a country and nowadays there are a number of examples. For people to have an issue with someone playing for the land of their birth is bizarre!

Theoretical case. Someone moves to Germany due to Military work. They're there for 2 years before moving back to their own country. In that time they have a kid. None of their family are from Germany, the kid lived in Germany for a year before moving away. You think it's ridiculous/bizarre (to both posters) that their eligibility is questioned?

Let's say the above kid moved to another country (France) instead of back to their parents country, they live there from the age of 1 to the age of 18 before moving back to their parents home country. They would qualify for Germany even their only tie is that they happened to be born there. They wouldn't be eligible for France even though they were raised there. They would still be eligible for their parent country.

That is ridiculous and bizarre (and not even that uncommon due to military movements).

Thunor, I see where you're going with this one, but it's a little harh to deny someone the country of their birth - after all, there's not much they can do about that. What makes a person feel the nationality that they feel? Birth, parentage, upbringing, $\€\£, grandparents, residency, etc.? It's simply less clear-cut in some cases

You've just shot yourself in the foot with that comment

Let's say the above kid moved to another country (France) instead of back to their parents country, they live there from the age of 1 to the age of 18 before moving back to their parents home country. They would qualify for Germany even their only tie is that they happened to be born there. They wouldn't be eligible for France even though they were raised there. They would still be eligible for their parent country.

They would be eligible to play for France or whoever because they have lived in that country for more than 3 years!!

By your way of thinking will everybody have to have a qualifying period of living in a country before they can play for the country they want to even if they are born there?

In the example above the kid leave France and moves back to his parents home country so he would no longer be able to play for France as the residency expires if you move without being capped I think? Ie you can't qualify for a country if you lived there as a child and that's your only connection.

I think it is just as long as you have lived there for 3 years, Tim Visser could still have played for England even though he didn't live there any longer having already qualified through the 3 years residency!

If someone was born on a British army base in Cyprus, is that Cypriot territory or British? If it's British does that allow someone to claim any one of 4 UK rugby nationalities, as it seems to be with the Channel Isles?

If someone is born on a BAOR base in Germany, is he British or German, or multi-UK?

Or are anyone of those the nationality that he feels? The crux is that an individual will represent the country that he desires - whether you or I consider that his motives for representing that country are venal, or undeserved, or altruistic, or well-earned are fairly irrelevant, except that our approval (or otherwise) puts bums on seats, buys replica shirts and pies and pints.

The approval level seems to be the IRB wording of "a genuine, close, credible and established national link with the country "

Majestic83 wrote:I think it is just as long as you have lived there for 3 years, Tim Visser could still have played for England even though he didn't live there any longer having already qualified through the 3 years residency!

No he couldn't. The three year residency is only valid if it immediately precedes your cap.

EDIT: I couldn't care less where anyone is born. Where you're born is a single point in time (well I suppose it depends on how long labour lasted).

Imperialbigdave wrote:

DaveM wrote:Already posted elsewhere, but

He's represented England at u16, u18 and u20 level, and been living in the south of England I believe since at least the age of 6. This is the flip-side of the nationality debate - just because he was born in Scotland some would argue he should be able to play for them, but every bit of his rugby education has been in England and I presume he has no plans to move to Scotland.

Doesn't feel right to me.

You can hand Tom Palmer back then.

Deal

Interesting case is the Vunipolas.

Mako was born in New Zealand, lived there for a year, moved to Asutralia for a few years, moved to Wales for a few years, moved to England around 10. Was qualified for New Zealand, Tonga and England.

Billy was born in Australia, moved to Wales for a few years, moved to England around 8. He's qualified for Tonga, Australia and England (and probably New Zealand due to parents place of birth but don't know).

So Billy is qualified for Australia but Mako isn't, even though Mako lived there longer (both only there briefly due to parent's work). Neither are qualified for Wales even though they lived there longer than New Zealand or Australia (possibly put together). Both are also qualified for Tonga even though neither has ever lived there.

If you haven't grown up in a country, and as an adult choose to neither live nor work in that country then I really don't see why you are qualified to play for that country. Where you are born is irrelevant to who you are - it would be possible for you not to know what country you were born in.

The English academies produce large numbers of players, many of who can probably claim some sort of link with Scotland. I wonder where this will end? Perhaps with England giving the u20's side the status of second team to ensure academy graduates have to really think about who they want to play for.

DaveM wrote:If you haven't grown up in a country, and as an adult choose to neither live nor work in that country then I really don't see why you are qualified to play for that country. Where you are born is irrelevant to who you are - it would be possible for you not to know what country you were born in.

The English academies produce large numbers of players, many of who can probably claim some sort of link with Scotland. I wonder where this will end? Perhaps with England giving the u20's side the status of second team to ensure academy graduates have to really think about who they want to play for.

Saxons is pretty much dead so it might be happening.

BTW, I have no issue with Heathcote playing for Scotland. I personally prefer decent residency to place of birth but that's generic rather than any specific case.

Well I suppose England have gone down that route many a time in recent years with the residency route instead of having English born players or players at least with a link to England!!

Majestic83 wrote:Well I suppose England have gone down that route many a time in recent years with the residency route instead of having English born players or players at least with a link to England!!

Botha (7 years), Flutey (3 years), Hape (6 years but broken so only 3) and Vainikolo (7 years) in the last 6(?) years. What's many and what's recent? And Flutey 'thinks' his grandfather was an English sailor, possibly.

HammerofThunor wrote:He got some caps just after moving to Saints, and was doing very well (sparked the home win over Munster). Played pants for England, the England management were blamed for that and the fact he's been a bit pants since then. Disappeared to France and then reappeared at Irish. I haven't seen him off the bench for any of their games I've seen (very few) so no idea how he's settled back in or what position they see him in.

and Geraghty represented Ireland at U16 level didn't he?

As far as im aware he did yes. I think he would of been better playing for ireland and going to one of the provinces. Tend to manage there players slightly better

tecphobe wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:He got some caps just after moving to Saints, and was doing very well (sparked the home win over Munster). Played pants for England, the England management were blamed for that and the fact he's been a bit pants since then. Disappeared to France and then reappeared at Irish. I haven't seen him off the bench for any of their games I've seen (very few) so no idea how he's settled back in or what position they see him in.

and Geraghty represented Ireland at U16 level didn't he?

As far as im aware he did yes. I think he would of been better playing for ireland and going to one of the provinces. Tend to manage there players slightly better

It what way do they manage their players better?

HammerofThunor wrote:

Majestic83 wrote:Well I suppose England have gone down that route many a time in recent years with the residency route instead of having English born players or players at least with a link to England!!

Botha (7 years), Flutey (3 years), Hape (6 years but broken so only 3) and Vainikolo (7 years) in the last 6(?) years. What's many and what's recent? And Flutey 'thinks' his grandfather was an English sailor, possibly.

So you would prefer someone to play for England or whatever country that has no link to them apart from living there for 3 years or more rather than someone who is born there or has links through their parents or grandparents??

PS you are missing a few more players than that from your list.....Manu Tuillagi, Hendre Fourie and also Van Gisbergen!!

Bloody hell, so I did. I forgot all about Fourie and Van Gisbergen (for some strange reason). I didn't even think of Tuilagi of residency

Tuilagi (6 years), Fourie (6 years), Van Gisbergen (3 years).

I honestly couldn't care less where someone was born. Most people born somewhere live there for a several years as well (which is much more important). It's that single event of birth location that I don't care about.

I personally would get rid of birth location from everything. My qualification criteria would be:

1) Lived there for at least 5 years immediately before being capped (2 year extension on current rule)

2) Have lived in a country for XX consecutive years at some point in their life, is maintained if moved away (XX maybe around 8 or 10 but doesn't matter too much).

3) Parents have lived for at least 10 consecutive years in a country before they hit 18

4) Grandparents have lived for at least 20 years in up to two consecutive sections before they hit 18 (i.e one may have lived their for 18 years, the other 2 years).

So instead of just being born there you have to live for a certain number of years. Instead of parents being just born there they have to have grown up there for a decent period of time. One grandparent isn't enough at least two must have some time in the country.

These are just rough ideas rather so the numbers are largely arbitrary. There will be special cases that this wouldn't be 'fair' for but there always will be.