Citizenship

[JonnyBGood]

I was just wondering what everyone's respective views on what requirements one needs for citizenship in a country. About three days ago in Ireland two parents, Nigerians I think, whose child was irish (ie born in Ireland) and who had been living here for three years had the supreme court rule that they were not entitled to remain in the country. Personally I find this incredibly stupid as for one there are currently no provisions made for the child (two years old I think) who certainly holds no responsibility for any of his parents actions as to how he will be supported when his parents aren't allowed to live in Ireland. Another victory for rational thinking in the courts then!

[Nodrog]

It depends what benefits you want the citizenship to confer.

[Androme]

I used to think getting citizenship was easy.

I think the problem lies with the immigration levels etc.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
It depends what benefits you want the citizenship to confer.

No it doesn't. It means you're treated like everyone else who is a citizen. Let's just suppose the system is a just and fair one initially.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
No it doesn't. It means you're treated like everyone else who is a citizen. Let's just suppose the system is a just and fair one initially.

treated like everyone else in what way?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
treated like everyone else in what way?

You pay taxes, are entitled to whatever free services operate in the country and have the right to live and work there. There's doubtlessly some other things I've forgotten.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
You pay taxes, are entitled to whatever free services operate in the country and have the right to live and work there. There's doubtlessly some other things I've forgotten.

Well people should have the right to live and work whereever they please anyway, so thats pretty irrelevant. Perhaps you could make people show their citizenship pass if they wanted to use the free services in a country. Obviously, as soon as they pay the taxes that fund them, they would be entitled to use them, so I dont see what difference citizenship would make anyway.

[Dante Hicks]

If I was on a Utopian Island and this issue was put to the vote then I'd go for citizenship to be conferred to anyone of reasonable character who had demonstrated their will to work towards a common social good in whatever their capacity.

In the UK now, anyone who has indefinite leave to remain (i.e. non Citizens) have the right to work, pay taxes, receive services and generally come and go as they please (although time restrictions apply). The only real difference is recourse to public funds (different from services) and voting.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Nodrog
Well people should have the right to live and work whereever they please anyway, so thats pretty irrelevant. Perhaps you could make people show their citizenship pass if they wanted to use the free services in a country. Obviously, as soon as they pay the taxes that fund them, they would be entitled to use them, so I dont see what difference citizenship would make anyway.

Yeah, because laws are really like that. Let's put it this way, these people are being deported back to a country which denies fundamental human rights. It's not much good pretending everyone acts a certain way just because you act like it. Makes you a liberal hippy communist that does!

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Yeah, because laws are really like that. Let's put it this way, these people are being deported back to a country which denies fundamental human rights. It's not much good pretending everyone acts a certain way just because you act like it. Makes you a liberal hippy communist that does!

Im not sure what you mean. The need for 'citizenship' is a byproduct of having a broken system. Its pointless to ask how it 'should' work, because its an unnecessary, unnatural and arbitrary complication caused by the way society is currently structured . It 'should' work by not existing, or at least by existing in a radically different way than what it does today.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
If I was on a Utopian Island and this issue was put to the vote then I'd go for citizenship to be conferred to anyone of reasonable character who had demonstrated their will to work towards a common social good in whatever their capacity.

Have you ever heard the one about the triangles? One day there were these triangles, 2^n triangles actually, and they wanted to make a square. So they thought long and hard about it. First of all they all tried to be little squares, but they couldn't do it because that wasn't in their nature. So they thought about it again. Then they realised if they combined and each acted exactly like they actually were in the best way they could they'd make a square.

[iain50]

if a dog is born in a barn, can it call itself a horse?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
It 'should' work by not existing, or at least by existing in a radically different way than what it does today.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that justifies citizenship currently is the possibility of compulsary military service or conscription. I think it'd be fair enough to say they are limited possibilites in Britain today.

(Actually the other one I can think of is idiots who go abroad and get arrested for smuggling drugs or whatever. Their citizenship badge get's them a free protest from the nearest British Consulate).

And on the original point, being Irish (or English, or American) has a dual meaning. Irish might mean born in Ireland, but "the Irish" is also an ethnic group independent of the nation. Children of Nigerians born in Ireland are Irish in the first sense, but they can never become the second.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
And on the original point, being Irish (or English, or American) has a dual meaning. Irish might mean born in Ireland, but "the Irish" is also an ethnic group independent of the nation. Children of Nigerians born in Ireland are Irish in the first sense, but they can never become the second.

Except for the fact there are no true Irish people left, assuming you're attempting to define it by the first-known historical group here. Having a useless ethnic group must be pretty stupid.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Except for the fact there are no true Irish people left, assuming you're attempting to define it by the first-known historical group here. Having a useless ethnic group must be pretty stupid.

As with languages, groups change their definition and their names. English now (both the language and the group) is something radically different to "English" a couple of hundred years ago.

That doesn't mean that the word English is useless now, does it?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
As with languages, groups change their definition and their names. English now (both the language and the group) is something radically different to "English" a couple of hundred years ago.

That doesn't mean that the word English is useless now, does it?

For languages no. For ethnic groups I don't quite see the point. Clearly you can just refer to them as English (ie english citizenship) or anglo-saxon. Why would we possibly need another definition? Also how long would you have to be living in England for? Three years? Thirty? A few generations? Just seems completely useless to me. Of course if you have an instance where it would actually be needed that'd help me.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
For languages no. For ethnic groups I don't quite see the point.

It's not a particularly scientific term (although genetic analysis still look at Jews as a specific group for instance) but it's still the defining element to the way most people look at nationality. Stalin's analysis of nationality despite being badly written got to the nub of the issue here : nationality is an issue of will.

When people say "England for the English", what do you think they mean? Do you think they mean "England for anyone with English citizenship"? If you do, you're wrong. They are talking about England for people of the English ethnic group. Is this morally wrong, yes probably. But it's still how it is.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
It's not a particularly scientific term (although genetic analysis still look at Jews as a specific group for instance) but it's still the defining element to the way most people look at nationality. Stalin's analysis of nationality despite being badly written got to the nub of the issue here : nationality is an issue of will.

When people say "England for the English", what do you think they mean? Do you think they mean "England for anyone with English citizenship"? If you do, you're wrong. They are talking about England for people of the English ethnic group. Is this morally wrong, yes probably. But it's still how it is.

Just because they're stupid doesn't mean we have to be too.

[iain50]

[i]When people say "England for the English", what do you think they mean? Do you think they mean "England for anyone with English citizenship"? If you do, you're wrong. They are talking about England for people of the English ethnic group. Is this morally wrong, yes probably. But it's still how it is. [/b]

Is it wrong to want to preserve your 'ethnic origin? you say morally it is, but you personnaly have posted on another thread that we should allow immigrants to keep their own ethnic background while in this contry, hypocracy ahoy

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by iain50
Is it wrong to want to preserve your 'ethnic origin? you say morally it is, but you personnaly have posted on another thread that we should allow immigrants to keep their own ethnic background while in this contry, hypocracy ahoy

Is it wrong to want to be rich. Yes if this involves stealing money from others, or killing people, or any other innumerable number of actions. That's the problem with an unqualified comment. You can do anything you want as long as it doesn't impinge directly on the rights of others etc etc etc

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by iain50
Is it wrong to want to preserve your 'ethnic origin? you say morally it is, but you personnaly have posted on another thread that we should allow immigrants to keep their own ethnic background while in this contry, hypocracy ahoy

Eh? In the other thread W has said I'm a racist, and now I'm saying immigrants should keep their ethnic origin?

And, no I don't think it's wrong for people to want to preserve their ethnic origin. If we had a genuinely free society I would certainly support the right for people to live wherever they wanted. However, I'd possibly also support the right for people to have an area set aside where only their "ethnic group" could live, although I can forsee various problems with this and I would certainly vote against it in my area.

And Jonny : It's not "legally" (if we can use that word for want of a better one) wrong unless you impinge the rights of others, yes. But is it a right to live wherever you want? Obviously we can't say people can live on someone elses private property, but can entire areas be considered communal private property (as it were)? If I buy 1000 acres of land, do you have a "right" to live on it?

[iain50]

I didnt suggest a means to the end. There is nothing wrong with wanting something, and the end must certainly justify the means. jonnybgood, go to the top of the thread, and read from there, then come post. taking what i say, in a personal kinda way to another person, and taking it out of context, is not a good way to enter a chat.


goodbye

[iain50]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Is this morally wrong, yes probably.

so, please sum up. ^^^^ here you say it is morally wrong, but in your last post you say you never said it was wrong

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks


And Jonny : It's not "legally" (if we can use that word for want of a better one) wrong unless you impinge the rights of others, yes. But is it a right to live wherever you want? Obviously we can't say people can live on someone elses private property, but can entire areas be considered communal private property (as it were)? If I buy 1000 acres of land, do you have a "right" to live on it?

Well you'd be impinging on their rights to use their property as they wish. You have a right to live whereever you want assuming it doesnt impinge on the rights of others, if you want.

I didnt suggest a means to the end. There is nothing wrong with wanting something, and the end must certainly justify the means. jonnybgood, go to the top of the thread, and read from there, then come post. taking what i say, in a personal kinda way to another person, and taking it out of context, is not a good way to enter a chat.


goodbye

Are you daft? This is my thread and my question as to what entitles a person to citizenship. I would like to point out that I feel I treated your point in a perfectly rational fashion.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by iain50
so, please sum up. ^^^^ here you say it is morally wrong, but in your last post you say you never said it was wrong

"England for the English" isn't synonomous with preserving with your ethnic origin. If you are saying that you would like a certain part of the UK set aside for the English (and the English only) then perhaps this would relate to my last post.

But (generally) saying England for the English means (a) deportation of non-English people already here, (b) ending all non-English (?) immigration - i.e. effectively ending immigration.

And yeah, that'd be morally wrong to me. If nothing else, me, my wife, and most of my friends being deported would be annoying.

If you are saying that you are worried that the English are at risk of losing their identity, I would consider this "wrong". Although I wouldn't share you view.

[iain50]

can we please replace english with british. (/me hopes not to open a whole new can of worms)

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by iain50
can we please replace english with british. (/me hopes not to open a whole new can of worms)

Well, generally when I hear the word English I think ethnic group, whereas British implies nationality (citizenship). You'll hear the phrase "Black British" quite a bit, but not "Black English". Maybe I'm wrong here, but that's the association I have.

But anyway, assuming the British are an ethnic group (which they're not, but then again neither are the English...) are you for "Britain for the British"?

[JonnyBGood]

Britain for the British (if you prefer) is synonymous for me with the concept of 'might means right'. As we can clearly see that the current ethnic group are not the original inhabitants of the area by any stretch of the imagination. It thus follows that something else entitles them to live there. The only other I can see is either the fact that they have the largest percentage of people now living there or the fact they're able to kill everyone else to have their opinions enforced.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
synonymous for me with the concept of 'might means right'.

This is also the justification for property (land) rights.

[Nixjim]

Individuals who have the following characteristics may be granted citizenship:

Have been permanent residents of the U.S. for at least five years (or, if married to a U.S. citizen spouse, after three years of continuous living in marital union with their spouse),
Are at least 18 years old and of good moral character
Read, write and speak English. Must also have knowledge of American history and government.
Have been physically present in the U.S. for at least 30 of the 60 months preceding the application (18 months during the 36 preceding months for the above spouses of U.S. citizens),
Have resided for at least the past 3 months within the state in which the applicant filed his naturalization petition.
Have resided continuously within the U.S. from the date the petition was filed up to the time of admission to citizenship
Must not have been absent from the U.S. for a continuous period of more than one year during the periods for which continuous residence is required.






USA Immigration Law Center
"Making USA Immigration fast and easy"
Copyright (c) 2001 1730 K Street Suite 304
Washington, DC 20006, 250 S President Suite 210 Street Baltimore, MD 21202
202-973-0168; 410-227-6075
[email protected]

I might also add that being born in the US make you an automatic US citizen, even if your parents are only visiting here at the time of birth.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Nixjim

I might also add that being born in the US make you an automatic US citizen, even if your parents are only visiting here at the time of birth.

What if you popped out on a plane while flying over the country?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by iain50
can we please replace english with british. (/me hopes not to open a whole new can of worms)

I'm English.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Nodrog
What if you popped out on a plane while flying over the country?

If the plane was considered to be in the US, then maybe, I don't know.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Rick
Actually this is one of the most blatent and wrong misinterpretations of a law that has ever been perpetrated.

Most specfically the 14th ammendment was ment to protect slaves in the south from being declared not citizens. It specfically says that IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CHILDREN BORN OF DIPLOMATS, OR PEOPLE NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES. In legal mumbo jumbo that translates to mean you have to be in accordance with the laws of the land for this to apply. If your here illegially you aren't in accordance with the laws and so the law does not apply. People think its the law, its NOT, and when ever the supreme court actually figures this out there are going to be some serious changes.

There are a ton of problems in this country right now especially near the border with the hospitals, and all because this well intentioned law has been distorted and willfully missinterpreted. Interpreted as it currently is, it rewards people who break the law, and no good law could do that.

I. Basic Primer on American Citizenship Law

1. A person can become an American citizen in one of two ways: by birth or by naturalization.

2. A person may be born a U.S. citizen by either jus soli, i.e., through place of birth, or jus sanguinis, i.e., through descent from his/her parents.


3. With very few exceptions, most of which have to do with children born to foreign government officials on assignment to the U.S., a person born in any of the fifty states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands is an American citizen at birth under the principle of jus soli, regardless of the nationality of his/her parents. Please contact the Embassy or your nearest consulate for more information.

http://www.usembassy.de/services/dualnationality.htm

I have to say you are wrong, my original statement stands, if you are born in the US, then you are a US citizen.

I found more:

Note that children born in the US to tourists -- or even to illegal aliens -- are US citizens by birth. Some politicians have proposed changing the law to deny citizenship to US-born children unless at least one parent is a US citizen or permanent resident alien ("green card" holder). However, since such children are guaranteed citizenship by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (see the Supreme Court's ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk), it is unlikely that this part of the INA could be successfully changed without another amendment to the Constitution. Even attempts to deny citizenship to such children by redefining them as not being subject to US jurisdiction (as proposed, for instance, by H.R. 190 in the 107th Congress) would probably have a rough time in the courts.

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html#CitByBirth

[iain50]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I'm English.

English = British

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Rick
Actually this is one of the most blatent and wrong misinterpretations of a law that has ever been perpetrated.

what about the part of the 14th amendment that says abortion is legal? (this is quite an overstatement on your part, i could go on with about 10K far worse examples. i recommend a retraction)


anyway, i'd say that citizenship implies a responsibility for the actions of your government, and nothing else.

i could certainly live in, work in, raise a family in, pay taxes in, even fight for, and perhaps die for, a country without being a citizen, so these don't matter.

[Tietäjä]

In Finland they just approved a law quite idiotic. It allows, practically, one who has born in for example the States, to hold on to his citizenship of Finland as secondary nationality if either of his parents is Finnish (or 2nd pass Finnish).

That comes up to a fact that people who aren't born here, who don't speak our language, and have never been here, can notice at the age of 18 that they are being called to serve in the army here.

Poof.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
In Finland they just approved a law quite idiotic. It allows, practically, one who has born in for example the States, to hold on to his citizenship of Finland as secondary nationality if either of his parents is Finnish (or 2nd pass Finnish).

That comes up to a fact that people who aren't born here, who don't speak our language, and have never been here, can notice at the age of 18 that they are being called to serve in the army here.

Poof.

being an american citizen, you automatically renounce citizenship of all other countries. we also don't recognize dual citizenships.

so to have become a us citizen, you must have renounced any finnish citizenship, tho i don't know how that plays out in finnish courts.

'yes i renounced finnish citizenship, but i didn't mean it "literally"'

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Rick
Actually this is one of the most blatent and wrong misinterpretations of a law that has ever been perpetrated.

Most specfically the 14th ammendment was ment to protect slaves in the south from being declared not citizens. It specfically says that IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CHILDREN BORN OF DIPLOMATS, OR PEOPLE NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

What part of the 14th amendment mentions the parents of the child?

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Rick
Yes, that is how it is currently misinterpetred. As it currently stands you are correct, you get citizenship for being born in the US. But this is deliberate misreading of the ammendment and this is evidenced by the amount of problems.

That is how the Supreme Court interprets it. Are you somehow above the Supreme Court that you are empowered to decide what interpretations are right and wrong? Congress makes laws, Supreme Court decides if they are Constitutional. So long as they say thats how it is, it is NOT misinterpreted.

[Nixjim]

Originally posted by Nodrog
What part of the 14th amendment mentions the parents of the child?

Beats me. Here's the whole thing.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.


Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.