Continuing the discussion from Donald Trump…our very own Fabulist-in-Chief!:
To add to the above, no one is born into the self=other Kingdom of Ends (Valuers) (@Jakob). They are invited, and they accept the invitation. Those who don’t accept the invitation consider it hell. Relevant: Kant doing Hegel/Nietzsche B4 it wuz kewl ;)
There’s a difference between gating certain privileges of citizenship and gating citizenship itself. I don’t think that either really works in practice, but for different reasons.
For citizenship, the biggest problem is deportation. If you aren’t a citizen, what is your residency status? Can you be deported? If you were born here, where would you be deported to?
For certain privileges of citizenship, the biggest problem is capture of the test/credential/rite of passage that you need to pass. Suppose we say that you need to graduate from high school, how long before states are fighting over adding LGBTQ and Christianity dogma to the curriculum?
Particularly where the privilege we’re gating is the right to vote, there’s a feedback loop of a slightly skewed test which skews the electorate which skews the test makers which skews the test.
I agree with your concluding point:
Let’s just get rid of citizenship, give everyone everywhere equal rights. I have three million square miles of land I can move in without needing anyone’s permission, but if I’d been born in Tuvalu I’d have less than 10. People moving from Wyoming to New York are the same phenomenon as people moving from Oaxaca to Texas.
No, I think we need to have consensual citizenship because I don’t think people should enjoy unlimited rights/privileges if they’re not going to be good citizens, and they need to know what that means in order to get on board with it.
If there is going to be a world-recognized standard, it has to accommodate the various cultures. There should be cultural sensitivity built into being a good citizen, and that cultural sensitivity should not respect traditions which violate human rights (self=other)—because those are the traditions forced upon cultures by those who exploit them from within.
There would be no culture if everyone violated human rights (self=other) completely. The only way global citizenship would work is if self=other was the recognized backbone of all culture, celebrating all diversity that does not violate self=other.
I think there need to be sanctions against groups of people who have unbalanced power over individuals. Even in a situation where there is only one tyrant, they have enforcers who could overthrow them. A tyrant cannot rule without people that enforce. So that is a group that would need to be sanctioned.
Citizenship should always be consensual, voluntary. I think if you took a vote on which country a person would want to be citizen of if they had the means to go to that country, if the citizens of a particular country would mostly vote to live elsewhere, there is a problem. Those things need to be fixed, and they won’t be fixed unless there is accountability. Just telling people they can be citizens anywhere and everywhere isn’t going to fix the problems. It’s going to cause more.
Fake woke outrage. The 14th was some law passed in the 1800s to protect freed negro slaves. It has no relevancy in modern day and was probably passed without any thought or planning.
Obviously if an non-citizen has a baby here then the baby is not a citizen.
Sorry if anyone assumes I’m a “trump-tard” for saying the obvious. Trump is not without his sins. He’s not a saint but I will not side with the leftists against him on this particular issue. Generally if someone doesn’t have a rational opinion I won’t side with them on the opinion.
Global citizenship. No borders. Kumbaya. Bonobos.
I gave you the blueprint for escaping the chimp dystopia. I gave the blueprints for bonobo society. I get no thanks, no help no gratitude.
You’re the one that belongs on Alcatraz encircled by a league of cyborg sharks.
Begone ye, Abrahamic chimpanzee…
I suppose that’s up to you, your responsibility. The state might say, “Hey bro you aren’t a citizen, you have 30 days to leave the country. If you need our help let us know.”
Or, alternately, “Um just letting you know, your newly born baby is not a citizen. You may or may not be, but your baby needs to either leave the country within 30 days or you can work on this process application to see if your baby can become a citizen. But, if both parents of the baby are not already citizens then the three of you need to leave within 30 days. Let us know if we can help with that.”
Birthright citizenship makes sense, until it is being exploited en mass by foreigners coming here just to give birth. That is silly. If both parents aren’t citizens and just came here temporarily to give birth here to make an ‘anchor baby’ that should of course not be allowed. Otherwise, birthright citizenship is just fine as an idea. If just one parent is a citizen and you were born here, OK great you are a citizen. If just one parent is a citizen and you were not born here, you are not a citizen unless at least your citizen parent appeals to a legal process to have you become a citizen (not sure what they might entail, certainly at minimum an extensive background check of both parents). If BOTH parents are citizens here then it shouldn’t matter where you were born, you are considered a citizen here too. Make sense?
Easy, done. Problem solved.
That should be a requirement for all citizens, whether they are born here or not. Otherwise, they have to give their baby up for adoption ‘cause they are unfit to raise children, forget citizenship. And any so-called citizens that fail a background check are no longer citizens, or at least they don’t have the full rights of citizens. But a lot of people who get away with crap today would fail a background check (if our laws were just) because they are greedy as hell and bad for the citizenry. Fair is fair.
If one of the parents is a citizen, then the baby ought become also a citizen of the parents nation, regardless of where they are born. If none of the parents are a citizen then neither ought be the baby. Anything else is an antiquated absurdity.
If citizenship is available to just anybody regardless of their status being illegal, doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of citizenship entirely?
And if that is the case, can you really say you have a nation in the traditional sense if your national borders are wide open where citizenship then becomes unenforceably trivialized?
"But, the Supreme Court statutes from the hippie judges of the 1960s says! Muh Supreme Court litigation! "
And, how has that worked out so far overtime?
If terrible laws are on the books they should be repealed and replaced, pretty simple.
“The president doesn’t have the legal authority even if he is of the Executive Branch!”
Got to love the failures of democracy, this is why we need an efficient autocracy that gets shit done that a bunch of spineless or already bribed paid for court bureaucrats seem unable and unwilling to do themselves. One of these days there’s going to need to be an abolition of the court.