Citizenship, while usually a circumstance of birth, comes with a a shared responsibility of the society one is a citizen of. That responsibility also goes the other way, where the society has a duty to look out for the citizen
While it sucks that people from other societies dont feel like those societies are good for them, it doesnt mean that citizens of the host society should extend that responsibility to people who do not share responsibility for that society like citizens do.
Essentially these foreign workers are mercenaries, and do not derserve the same loyalty and protections that citizens do
We are on the tail end of a 75 year old experiment in the West of divorcing where you live or were born from any sort of responsibility for anything in either direction, except for paying taxes to government and fees to your patron.
Yeah and thats going really shittily. The richest country in the world has housing crisises while the stock market reaches all time highs. Veterans are homeless. Teachers are quiting because theyre underpaid. Its clear the deal was ruined and needs to be refreshed otherwise this society will be hollowed out by the wealthy before they abscond away to somewhere better managed
So citizenship is yet another contract - between an individual and a society. To eliminate the unfairness of lottery, changing citizenships should be as easy as changing jobs.
No becuase citizenship implies deep cultural and philosophical values as well. You cant switch those that quickly
Another reason is that the responsibilities between citizen and society are fulfilled on a long timescale. A society will educate you, and then you need to contribute to the economy in that society to pay it back so to speak. Technological innovation, military service, rasing future citizens. Any of these things can only happen on a long timescale so quickly switching citizenship doesnt allow that contract to be fulfilled
This is "gotcha" style internet trolling. It doesn't belong on HN.
To be specific, for clarity: "Most" is a dishonest word in this context, and regardless the parent did not imply a legal distinction. As for definition: First, nobody here is necessarily using the word by some specific definition invented at a particular time, but rather in the colloquial sense of being a member of a country; and second, even if they were restricting the sense of the word to the one you are referring to, recency (if that's what you're implying by "18th century"...?) does not imply some kind of triviality.
Self-assigned moderation doesn't belong to HN. Also, considering the wide cultural background of the userbase. I have no idea what's your "gotcha" style means. Neither your explanation helps.
As for the specific wording, replace "Most" with "Many", the point still stands.
Again, please refrain from moderation and silencing attempts. Thank you.
changing citizenships should be as easy as changing jobs
Even removing legal barriers, it can't be as easy, since changing citizenships necessitates a very large geographical move, while changing jobs may a require a large move, a small move, or no move. Changing countries changes your entire life - you are leaving your home, its culture, and everybody you know there. It's cruel to imply the people who would be made miserable by such changes simply don't matter.
The point is to eliminate the birth lottery - so if you happen to be born in a bad place, moving to a better place should be just a matter of your wish.
Comments
Citizenship, while usually a circumstance of birth, comes with a a shared responsibility of the society one is a citizen of. That responsibility also goes the other way, where the society has a duty to look out for the citizen
While it sucks that people from other societies dont feel like those societies are good for them, it doesnt mean that citizens of the host society should extend that responsibility to people who do not share responsibility for that society like citizens do.
Essentially these foreign workers are mercenaries, and do not derserve the same loyalty and protections that citizens do
We are on the tail end of a 75 year old experiment in the West of divorcing where you live or were born from any sort of responsibility for anything in either direction, except for paying taxes to government and fees to your patron.
Yeah and thats going really shittily. The richest country in the world has housing crisises while the stock market reaches all time highs. Veterans are homeless. Teachers are quiting because theyre underpaid. Its clear the deal was ruined and needs to be refreshed otherwise this society will be hollowed out by the wealthy before they abscond away to somewhere better managed
Can you elaborate? I'm not quite following this.
post WW2 basically.
So citizenship is yet another contract - between an individual and a society. To eliminate the unfairness of lottery, changing citizenships should be as easy as changing jobs.
No becuase citizenship implies deep cultural and philosophical values as well. You cant switch those that quickly
Another reason is that the responsibilities between citizen and society are fulfilled on a long timescale. A society will educate you, and then you need to contribute to the economy in that society to pay it back so to speak. Technological innovation, military service, rasing future citizens. Any of these things can only happen on a long timescale so quickly switching citizenship doesnt allow that contract to be fulfilled
If that was the case, most existing citizens would lose their status :)
It is much faster with the globalization and youtube-ization. After all, "We all live in Amerika".
Btw, the notion of what we call today a citizenship arose just at late 18th century. So, it's not something fundamental that has always been there.
This is "gotcha" style internet trolling. It doesn't belong on HN.
To be specific, for clarity: "Most" is a dishonest word in this context, and regardless the parent did not imply a legal distinction. As for definition: First, nobody here is necessarily using the word by some specific definition invented at a particular time, but rather in the colloquial sense of being a member of a country; and second, even if they were restricting the sense of the word to the one you are referring to, recency (if that's what you're implying by "18th century"...?) does not imply some kind of triviality.
Self-assigned moderation doesn't belong to HN. Also, considering the wide cultural background of the userbase. I have no idea what's your "gotcha" style means. Neither your explanation helps.
As for the specific wording, replace "Most" with "Many", the point still stands.
Again, please refrain from moderation and silencing attempts. Thank you.
Even removing legal barriers, it can't be as easy, since changing citizenships necessitates a very large geographical move, while changing jobs may a require a large move, a small move, or no move. Changing countries changes your entire life - you are leaving your home, its culture, and everybody you know there. It's cruel to imply the people who would be made miserable by such changes simply don't matter.
The point is to eliminate the birth lottery - so if you happen to be born in a bad place, moving to a better place should be just a matter of your wish.