[alithinker]

So if I wanna go live and work somewhere I can't because I am not a "citizen" of that country. But wasn't citizenship meant to be "voluntary"?
Apparently citizenship is granted by "birth". I wasn't born in that country so I am not a citizen, and I am not "allowed" to live and work there.
Why does birth give you any privileges? There should be no privileges for birth- except maybe inheritance from parents. Why do we give privileges to people based on their place of birth? This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If you want privileges you should "earn" them, not inherit them.

[redcarpet]

Well you're supposed to have rights the moment you're born. And the state, certainly for those accepting the Enlightenment, must be protected by the state. Chiefly for citizens, which can be born overseas but to the parents of citizens of your society.

[taltom]

So if I wanna go live and work somewhere I can't because I am not a "citizen" of that country. But wasn't citizenship meant to be "voluntary"?
Apparently citizenship is granted by "birth". I wasn't born in that country so I am not a citizen, and I am not "allowed" to live and work there.
Why does birth give you any privileges? There should be no privileges for birth- except maybe inheritance from parents. Why do we give privileges to people based on their place of birth? This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If you want privileges you should "earn" them, not inherit them.

I think what you're referring to is "birthright citizenship", a status that many nations grant in full, meaning that even tourists and illegal immigrants can have children with full citizenship rights. Most of the nations in the Western hemisphere have it, but other parts of the world either never had it, or have repealed it. There, one or both parents must be long-time residents or citizens themselves. If you're referring to withholding citizenship from those obviously born within the borders of a country where both parents are already citizens, that won't fly anywhere. Any such evaluation system would be too costly and difficult to administer, unless your nation is the size of Rhode Island. Robert Heinlein once wrote a novel that postulated the granting of voting rights only to military veterans, a patently unworkable system. The military can't possibly absorb, use, and pay all those four million newcomers, nor do all of them qualify for military service.

This post strikes me as an example of the "ladder syndrome" where someone, having reached an upper tier, wants to pull the ladder up behind him. I think any such scheme must be thoroughly thought out - how would you avoid having any such system hijacked by political skulduggery? How would you "earn" it? Today a non-citizen serving in the armed forces can get fast-tracked to citizenship based on that service. That's certainly "earning it". But how would someone not in the services earn it? What must they demonstrate that isn't in the naturalization system as it is?

[quetzalcoatl]

There is no inherent "right" to citizenship whatever. The right to have well-defined borders, to control who passes through borders (in either direction), and the right to define who is a citizen of a nation are well-established in law and history, but they are contingent. They will continue to exist only as long as nations are willing to exercise force to guarantee them.

Any attempt to limit these national rights are generally viewed by average citizens as a threat to their security, if not an outright attack. This is especially true for citizens of western liberal democracies, whose leaders operate under an entirely different set of priorities and assumptions than the people they rule. This is why central Europe is now suffering blowback in regard to mass migration. European leaders are used to people accepting their decrees passively, but it is not happening in this case. This is also why, seemingly out of nowhere, immigration (regarded as a minor issue) has exploded into a defining issue in the US.

People who have an established way of life within an established set of borders view that way of life as their birthright, and will fight fiercely to defend it. Their belief that you do NOT have a right to freely cross their border is at least as strong as your belief that you DO. Both beliefs are based on perceptions of self-interest, and will be settled ultimately by armed conflict. Your view of immigration is currently gaining the upper hand simply because the West is divided against itself on this issue, hoisted on the petard of its own liberalism.

Western leaders operate within a defined worldview which is sometimes called neo-liberalism. Part of its canon is that all aspects of life should be subject to market forces. They believe in free trade, free movement of capital, and free movement of labor across borders. This is actually enshrined in the platform of the Libertarian Party, and endorsed sub rosa by the neoliberal paradigm. The oligarchs who control Europe and the US view immigration as a vitally necessary tool to limit wages and worker rights. As you can imagine, the business establishment in the US is horrified by Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric. Western media can be counted on to portray any opposition to their immigration polices as racist or nativist.

The left's support for immigration as a human right is tragically misguided, when not downright cynical. In a broader sense, the transnational character of liberal capitalism can only view issues of national sovereignty as an impediment to its hegemony.

Never forget that the people who cross borders (men, women, and children) are soldiers. They reject the right of citizens to define their national character, and believe in their right to forcefully alter it. The Europeans who landed on the shores of North America were soldiers, engaged in a war to wrest control of the continent from its occupants and annihilate their culture. Why do we believe that the present is different from the past? It is not. Israel rejects the right if Palestinians to have well-defined borders, and encroaches them at its convenience. Palestinians view settlers as soldiers in exactly this sense, and they are correct to do so.

We have soldiers at border crossings because it is essentially a military issue - that is, it involves the basic survival of the nation itself. The leaders who abet uncontrolled migration have different motives from the migrants, but the end result is the same: national chaos and internal conflict. Western leaders want to deprecate national sovereignty in favor of hegemonistic capital, and the migrants want a better life (without the inconvenience of adopting western values).

[alithinker]

Well you're supposed to have rights the moment you're born.

But why should the State owe you any Rights if you don't contribute to the State? Why should somebody who doesn't pay taxes be protected by the State if he/she doesn't contribute anything to the State?
Don't get me wrong, I am not against helping the poor and the needy. But is that for the State to take care of? Can't people take care of the poor and the needy themselves without burdening the State?
Coz think about it. When you burden the State with caring for the needy, you are essentially "distributing" the cost. Now what if somebody doesn't want to contribute to helping that particular person considered "needy"? What if a citizen- someone who contributes to the State with taxes- wants to be selective about whom he/she wants to help? In today's world, you can't be picky. People choose for you. How is that OK?

I think what you're referring to is "birthright citizenship", a status that many nations grant in full, meaning that even tourists and illegal immigrants can have children with full citizenship rights. Most of the nations in the Western hemisphere have it, but other parts of the world either never had it, or have repealed it. There, one or both parents must be long-time residents or citizens themselves. If you're referring to withholding citizenship from those obviously born within the borders of a country where both parents are already citizens, that won't fly anywhere. Any such evaluation system would be too costly and difficult to administer, unless your nation is the size of Rhode Island. Robert Heinlein once wrote a novel that postulated the granting of voting rights only to military veterans, a patently unworkable system. The military can't possibly absorb, use, and pay all those four million newcomers, nor do all of them qualify for military service.
This post strikes me as an example of the "ladder syndrome" where someone, having reached an upper tier, wants to pull the ladder up behind him. I think any such scheme must be thoroughly thought out - how would you avoid having any such system hijacked by political skulduggery? How would you "earn" it? Today a non-citizen serving in the armed forces can get fast-tracked to citizenship based on that service. That's certainly "earning it". But how would someone not in the services earn it? What must they demonstrate that isn't in the naturalization system as it is?

I don't think you understood what I was suggesting. Refer to my reply above to "redcarpet" for a better clarification of what I meant.

[alithinker]

There is no inherent "right" to citizenship whatever. The right to have well-defined borders, to control who passes through borders (in either direction), and the right to define who is a citizen of a nation are well-established in law and history, but they are contingent. They will continue to exist only as long as nations are willing to exercise force to guarantee them.

Any attempt to limit these national rights are generally viewed by average citizens as a threat to their security, if not an outright attack. This is especially true for citizens of western liberal democracies, whose leaders operate under an entirely different set of priorities and assumptions than the people they rule. This is why central Europe is now suffering blowback in regard to mass migration. European leaders are used to people accepting their decrees passively, but it is not happening in this case. This is also why, seemingly out of nowhere, immigration (regarded as a minor issue) has exploded into a defining issue in the US.

People who have an established way of life within an established set of borders view that way of life as their birthright, and will fight fiercely to defend it. Their belief that you do NOT have a right to freely cross their border is at least as strong as your belief that you DO. Both beliefs are based on perceptions of self-interest, and will be settled ultimately by armed conflict. Your view of immigration is currently gaining the upper hand simply because the West is divided against itself on this issue, hoisted on the petard of its own liberalism.

Western leaders operate within a defined worldview which is sometimes called neo-liberalism. Part of its canon is that all aspects of life should be subject to market forces. They believe in free trade, free movement of capital, and free movement of labor across borders. This is actually enshrined in the platform of the Libertarian Party, and endorsed sub rosa by the neoliberal paradigm. The oligarchs who control Europe and the US view immigration as a vitally necessary tool to limit wages and worker rights. As you can imagine, the business establishment in the US is horrified by Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric. Western media can be counted on to portray any opposition to their immigration polices as racist or nativist.

The left's support for immigration as a human right is tragically misguided, when not downright cynical. In a broader sense, the transnational character of liberal capitalism can only view issues of national sovereignty as an impediment to its hegemony.

Never forget that the people who cross borders (men, women, and children) are soldiers. They reject the right of citizens to define their national character, and believe in their right to forcefully alter it. The Europeans who landed on the shores of North America were soldiers, engaged in a war to wrest control of the continent from its occupants and annihilate their culture. Why do we believe that the present is different from the past? It is not. Israel rejects the right if Palestinians to have well-defined borders, and encroaches them at its convenience. Palestinians view settlers as soldiers in exactly this sense, and they are correct to do so.

We have soldiers at border crossings because it is essentially a military issue - that is, it involves the basic survival of the nation itself. The leaders who abet uncontrolled migration have different motives from the migrants, but the end result is the same: national chaos and internal conflict. Western leaders want to deprecate national sovereignty in favor of hegemonistic capital, and the migrants want a better life (without the inconvenience of adopting western values).

Very dark picture there. How do you explain me then, being from the Middle East and "embracing" Western values?
I don't think what you said about immigrants is true about every immigrant. It is certainly true about some, but not all. And that is thing.
If movement was free, and people from all over the world could go and live/work wherever they pleased, this problem wouldn't exist. The problem exists because people who "move" to a certain country- Western countries for example- do not have to assimilate to what you consider "Western" values. They can stay there- if they succeed at immigrating, which many do-, benefit from the Western system, and still work against it.
But why do they get benefits from staying there? Why does existing in certain countries- legally- automatically grant you benifits? That sounds "strange" to me.
So say I exist in Canada now. And say I am there legally- have a work permit. That gives me "rights"- believe it or not.

Well how about this? How about, if I stay in Canada and work AND pay taxes, I get rights and protection. If I don't pay taxes, I get nothing. How about that? How about making it literally "economical"? Wouldn't that prevent people who do not accept the "Western way of life" from ever migrating there because they are not getting any benefits unless they assimilate?

[taltom]

I don't think you understood what I was suggesting. Refer to my reply above to "redcarpet" for a better clarification of what I meant.

I rather think it is you who has misunderstood the concept of a democracy. Fascism arises from the concept of a state that is superior in its rights than its citizens. Democracies demand that there is no state as such separate from its people. In a real sense, a democratic nation does not confer rights, but the citizenry confers rights on itself. In democracy, citizens are bound to one another in agreements, but not to the state. Rather it is agreements between equals. That's the entire philosophy of the Constitution. It's not a law, but a covenant. The government is not an organ of state, but an instrument of the citizenry.

In a democratic context, the state does not possess any rights, and has only obligations pressed upon it by its constituents. It must executive the tasks normally expected of a government, but unlike fascism, if the citizenry were to vanish, so would the state. Under fascism, the state exists even if the citizenry ceases to exist.

Under this definition, one who does not "contribute" (whatever that may mean) may be guilty of freeloading, but nothing more. There are both legal and moral repercussions to freeloading, but freeloading is a risk that a democracy takes that a fascist state does not. In a democracy, one may choose not to participate in the community at all, barring the simplest contributions of paying taxes and obeying the law. One may even choose, if one is wealthy enough, to disengage further and not work at any sort of productive labor, but merely free ride on the labor of others and pay a pittance in taxes while enjoying the full fruits of citizenship.

Consequently, as a citizen of a democratic nation, the "state" does not determine my status; the covenant under which I live determines that.

This makes immigration a difficulty, of course, as is birthright citizenship. By covenant, being merely within the boundaries of territory controlled by the US government makes one a citizen by default. This is not a surprising outcome considering that our Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by universalist thinkers like Thomas Paine, whose writings were called "The Rights of Man", and not "The Rights of Nations". One of the drawbacks of a democracy is that the populace can take aim at trivial or imaginary dangers and force public policy that harms vast numbers. Once the US solicited immigration to populate its huge open spaces, but soon after the "ladder syndrome" took hold and those already here wanted to pull up the immigration ladder behind them.

Then there is the distinction between socialist and competitive economies, but that's another conversation.

[alithinker]

I rather think it is you who has misunderstood the concept of a democracy. Fascism arises from the concept of a state that is superior in its rights than its citizens. Democracies demand that there is no state as such separate from its people. In a real sense, a democratic nation does not confer rights, but the citizenry confers rights on itself. In democracy, citizens are bound to one another in agreements, but not to the state. Rather it is agreements between equals. That's the entire philosophy of the Constitution. It's not a law, but a covenant. The government is not an organ of state, but an instrument of the citizenry.

In a democratic context, the state does not possess any rights, and has only obligations pressed upon it by its constituents. It must executive the tasks normally expected of a government, but unlike fascism, if the citizenry were to vanish, so would the state. Under fascism, the state exists even if the citizenry ceases to exist.

Under this definition, one who does not "contribute" (whatever that may mean) may be guilty of freeloading, but nothing more. There are both legal and moral repercussions to freeloading, but freeloading is a risk that a democracy takes that a fascist state does not. In a democracy, one may choose not to participate in the community at all, barring the simplest contributions of paying taxes and obeying the law. One may even choose, if one is wealthy enough, to disengage further and not work at any sort of productive labor, but merely free ride on the labor of others and pay a pittance in taxes while enjoying the full fruits of citizenship.

Consequently, as a citizen of a democratic nation, the "state" does not determine my status; the covenant under which I live determines that.

This makes immigration a difficulty, of course, as is birthright citizenship. By covenant, being merely within the boundaries of territory controlled by the US government makes one a citizen by default. This is not a surprising outcome considering that our Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by universalist thinkers like Thomas Paine, whose writings were called "The Rights of Man", and not "The Rights of Nations". One of the drawbacks of a democracy is that the populace can take aim at trivial or imaginary dangers and force public policy that harms vast numbers. Once the US solicited immigration to populate its huge open spaces, but soon after the "ladder syndrome" took hold and those already here wanted to pull up the immigration ladder behind them.

Then there is the distinction between socialist and competitive economies, but that's another conversation.

Interesting. I agree with everything that you said. I love how you depicted "democracy" and how it is a covenant. And that is the thing, it is meant to be a "covenant". Covenant means there is an "agreement". But that does not happen in "birthright". A new born baby does not agree, or disagree, in order to enter the covenant. How is he/she a citizen then?
And why can't a foreigner enter that "covenant" freely if he/she wants to? That is my whole argument.

I get what you mean by the "ladder syndrome". I feel like people in America pull the ladder behind them- to use your expression- because there are "free" benefits associated with being a US citizen. But why are there "free" benefits at all to any citizenship? If citizenship benefits weren't free, nobody would want to pull the ladder behind them. If you want to be a citizen, you pay for it.
And it is true that even today, you can become a citizen of many countries if you are rich enough, but that is not practical. You have to be a millionaire in order to buy your way into a citizenship. Why couldn't you become a citizen of a country if you can contribute just a little? Why do you have to be a millionaire? I mean, so long as you are going to contribute, shouldn't you be allowed to become a citizen?