Citizen

azezil

Multi part questions for you:

What do you consider a citizen to be?

Should being born in a country automatically make you a citizen?

What are the responsibilities of citizenship?

Should there be some sort of test to be taken before becomeing a citizen?

And finally, if there was a difference between being a citizen and being a resident of a country, should the citizen then enjoy greater benifits, opertunities?

seamus

Originally posted by azezil
Multi part questions for you:

What do you consider a citizen to be?

Someone who is legally recognised as being a 'member' of the permanent population of a country.

Should being born in a country automatically make you a citizen?

No. But there should be other ways of gaining citizenship then just through blood. Like being a second generation born on the island (i.e. your parent(s) were also born here, citizen or not)

What are the responsibilities of citizenship?

Way too numerous. Reporting crime, respecting the country, etc etc.

Should there be some sort of test to be taken before becomeing a citizen?

No. Any test would be failed by half of the actual citizens, why would potentials have to be tested. And on what?

And finally, if there was a difference between being a citizen and being a resident of a country, should the citizen then enjoy greater benifits, opertunities?

Depends on the length of residency. There should be a 'grandfather clause' (like in the Simpsons ) where people of a long permanent residency (e.g. 15 years concurrently), and with a stable job for more than a year are granted citizenship. The only thing citizens are entitled to imho, is a passport, the protection of the state, and welfare benefits. That said, residents should also be allowed welfare benefits (citizen or not) if they have one year's concurrent paid income tax.

My 2c

Typedef

What do you consider a citizen to be?

A citizen is a person who lives within some kind of administrative structure who is afforded the protection of the state and can in theory ascend to every etilan of that state's society. A 'citizen' who could not make such an ascention would be a 'second class' ciziten.

Should being born in a country automatically make you a citizen?

I think so, this is currently the common criteria used to ascribe entitlement to citizenship in the vast majority of countries around the world and if the criteria were changed, it would invariably in my opinion lead to a cultural eugenics of who can and cannot be a citizen.
Such a policy would give rise to children of immigrants and refugees 'not' having automatic citizenship, which is probably fine by lots of people, but then the question has to be asked, just how long do you have to live in a country to be entitled to be a citizen? So presumably for the first (n) years of your life in country (m) you would not be deemed a citizen and would have a lesser status of queued citizenship.

[quote
What are the responsibilities of citizenship?[/quote]
You have to obey the laws of the land and do your best to contribute to society if not in a meaningful way, then by not filibustering others in their own attempt to contribute to society, again by obeying the laws of the land and ultimately contributing more via tax in 'western models' or by some kind of collectively meaningfuly work in more 'Marxist/Englesist' countries.

Should there be some sort of test to be taken before becomeing a citizen?

No, if you are entitled to be a citizen of a country by birth, then you should not have to pass arbitrary test (n) in order to gain citizenship else people who are born in country (n) must sit the same test as immigrants as it would seem a strange misascription of equal rights to require someone to pass a test to be a citizen when that person might equally have been born in an airport in a state but 'not' have to sit the same test. That would seem quite skewed and unfair in reality.

And finally, if there was a difference between being a citizen and being a resident of a country, should the citizen then enjoy greater benifits, opertunities?

In my view a citizen and a resident are both human beings and ulitmately have the same rights and entitlements due to their species - Homo Sapiens. Citizenship is really an arbitrary barrier for a country to shirk it's responsibilities to human rights at the fence of it's border.
To take an example and to quote the Americans 'All men are created equal', now to take such a statement literally this would mean that the US should interviene in every conflict where people could be hurt because each human life is as precious as the next, which sadly seems to be an etheral and unrealistic notion. On topic, I suppose a resident is not expected to contribute to the community but simply obey the laws of the land while a citizen is expected to do the same but also exponenciate and endemnify and act as an ambassador for what it means to come from state (x).

Typedef.

Paddy20

Azezil,

The whole world has become practically one and the same.

We are now in reality, practically ALL citizens of this planet, called Earth.

Therefore, your questions are out dated and smack of "Big Brother" control freak mentalities.

Individual citizenship of small Countries like Ireland, in no longer relevant. For instance, I suddenly have found that I have a European Driving Licence, I am spending European currency and apparently someone will soon be issuing me with a European Passport.

I am not objecting to all this. In fact if they want they can make me an individual citizen of this world, as that is what I have always believed I was anyway.

Yours, paddy20. A flower/power sixties revolutionary: Peace & Love to ALL??...

swiss

Has the idea of citizenship become then, an outdated idea? The idea of ascribing a special status to the residents of a country in that country is age old, and time honoured. It is in human nature and would make sense to allow those people who have a direct interest in the running of a country a measure of responsibility in the running of that country (for example, voting rights for citizens).

We do not allow 'outsiders' the same level of responsibility until it is deemed that they are familiar enough with our culture and society, or else have a vested interest in the running of the country in question. To not have this distinction would be tantamount to allowing the people of the world decide how our country should be run. In this respect, the distinction that citizenship entails is grounded in self interest, as it is generally assumed that those who are ordinarily resident in a country are going to make the best decisions that will benefit the country in question.

The rights afforded to citizens should therefore be commensurate with the responsibilities entailed by their designation. For example, as a citizen can work and travel freely, so too should they be allowed access to state help in times of difficulty, for example welfare benefits, free medical and legal assistance, if required. While I am not saying a non-national should not be afforded these rights, it is in a nations own interests to look after it's own citizens for the reasons mentioned above.

Until we become a truly global society, and become unconcerned with our own parochial interests when compared to the common good, then the idea of citizenship can finally become defunct. Until that time, the notion of segregating people into citizens and non-citizens will always have a place in society.

colinsky

Originally posted by seamus

The only thing citizens are entitled to imho, is a passport, the protection of the state, and welfare benefits. That said, residents should also be allowed welfare benefits (citizen or not) if they have one year's concurrent paid income tax.

What about the right to vote? Should any taxpaper be entitled to have a say in the government (i.e., how there taxes are to be spent/redistributed) whether resident or citizen?

According to the registration for I filled out, in Ireland:

Irish Citizen: right to vote in all elections.
EU (Non-Irish) citizen: right to voice in city/town and eu-related elections
Non-EU resident (like me): right to vote only in local city/town elections.

To some degree, I would argue that anyone under the _influence_ of government policy should have a right to have their voice heard on that policy (e.g. the recent abortion referendum)...of course, this is the whole American ideal I've been raised with that hearkens back to the concept of "no taxation without representation".

--

Requiring a year of income tax before entitling one to welfare benefits gets to be problem in many instances -- wouldn't the likely recipient of welfare being one who earns to little to have paid anything in taxes?

--

Citizenship itself seems to go a bit hand-in-hand with nationalism, which can get ugly. I hate to see calls for the US government to interfere when, for instance as a few years ago, an American citizen is arrested in Singapore for violating graffiti laws. I believe that people should be entitled to live and work wherever they may choose, without having to get an external work permit which (as with mine here), ties me to a specific job.

On the other hand, allowing someone to live in whatever country they want causes the potential problem we have seen of poorer people moving to another country specifically because of social and welfare benefits. Personally, I'm generally against such benefits, which would solve the problem, but otherwise the rsolution is to gradually earn those rights (including voting) over a period of a few years -- of course, leading to the concept of an earned residency. That is, I earn the right to live in a particular country -- by, for instance, living under the laws of the country in question rather than getting arrested, paying my taxes, and whatnot.

In the long run, I think that citizenship will expand to more of an international rather than national matter, as you have within the EU/EEC.

colinsky

Originally posted by Typedef
To take an example and to quote the Americans 'All men are created equal', now to take such a statement literally this would mean that the US should interviene in every conflict where people could be hurt because each human life is as precious as the next, which sadly seems to be an etheral and unrealistic notion.

Nope. The presence of this in the constitution implies that all US Law must conform to this ideal, as it is the overarching legal document of US soverignity; i.e., the government cannot interfere with these rights. There is no implied obligation (or justification, or given power) for the US to interfere with any other nations soverignity.

seamus

Originally posted by colinsky

Requiring a year of income tax before entitling one to welfare benefits gets to be problem in many instances -- wouldn't the likely recipient of welfare being one who earns to little to have paid anything in taxes?

Maybe I should have been clearer. I personally haven't earned enough yet to pay tax, ever, being a student still, but I have been registered and available to pay tax, should I earn above the limit. What I really meant was having one year's concurrent earnings, whether any tax was paid or not, should then entitle you to welfare. If you are registered for tax, imo it means that you are willing to pay tax should you have to. OK, legalities aside, there's plenty of people who get paid under the table, but seeing as they haven't been registered for tax, they're not entitled to welfare. That's a bit of a wishy-washy explanation, I'm a bit fried atm, but obviously the whole process would be a little more strict/foolproof than that.

I disagree with you on the US constitution. I don't think the statement 'All men are created equal' implies a US-only meaning, even in the context.

colinsky

Originally posted by seamus
I disagree with you on the US constitution. I don't think the statement 'All men are created equal' implies a US-only meaning, even in the context.

Well, it actually being the declaration of independence does hurt my argument a little

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

seamus

Well, it's extremely arguable and OT, but the only thing I see that *does* imply the US is the fact it's the US constitution.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It's the pluralization of things like Government and statements like 'all men' as opposed to 'all americans'. It certainly doesn't limit the application of these beliefs to any one country or state.

colinsky

Originally posted by seamus
It's the pluralization of things like Government and statements like 'all men' as opposed to 'all americans'. It certainly doesn't limit the application of these beliefs to any one country or state.

Okay, now that I've got my context correct:

This document is declaring a set of rights that all people, everywhere, should be entitled to. Furthermore, it alleges that it is the responsibility of the government to protect those rights, and of the people to challenge the government if it does not.

It then lists a lot of ways in which the evil British monarchy has violated these fundamental rights. And therefore:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

because we should have these rights and don't, we're thumbing our nose at the Brits and setting up our own separate government.

But while the fundamental rights, and the responsibility of "the People" to demand these rights is asserted, there is no stated obligation here for the US to assist in demanding these rights on behalf of others. (I believe there is such as assertion in some of the UN Human Rights or Security Council charters, though).

bonkey

Originally posted by azezil
What do you consider a citizen to be?

Hmmm. Without taking the "Starship Troopers" distinction of citizenship, this is a toughie I'm undecided as to whether its based on your nationality, or your current permanent residence. I'm leaning towards "current" nationality though (because it is possible to have more than one, in the eyes of the law).

Should being born in a country automatically make you a citizen?

No, unless we wish to give nations the right to refuse pregnant women entry to the country. I know that this flies in the face of current standard practice, but there you go.

What are the responsibilities of citizenship?

There are none, and there should be none.

Every individual is obliged to obey the laws of whatever nation they happen to be in, regardless of whether they are a citizen of that nation or not. The only exception being insurrectionists, who need to be able to show valid reasons for ignoring the government.

Should there be some sort of test to be taken before becomeing a citizen?

No. I like Typedefs answer to this one.

And finally, if there was a difference between being a citizen and being a resident of a country, should the citizen then enjoy greater benifits, opertunities?

Where I live, there is a difference. Its simple. Not being a citizen, I cant vote, nor can I stand for office. This makes sense to me, because I can vote and run for office in Ireland (where I am a citizen). Also, given that the population of this country includes 1,000,000 (out of 7,000,000) non-naturalised foreigners like myself, I can see the logic behind this rule.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by colinsky
this is the whole American ideal I've been raised with that hearkens back to the concept of "no taxation without representation".

What about the opposite?

If an American citizen is working abroad for an extended period of time, do they still pay American taxes as well as those in their place of residence? If not, do they lose the right to vote until they return home?

I mean, surely "no representation without taxation" is not an unreasonable counterpart?

If not, then once I pay taxes once in America, do I retain the right to vote in America ever after I stop payng taxes there?

I'm just curious - its an interesting idea, but I would question the implementation.

jc

colinsky

Originally posted by bonkey


What about the opposite?

If an American citizen is working abroad for an extended period of time, do they still pay American taxes as well as those in their place of residence? If not, do they lose the right to vote until they return home?

I mean, surely "no representation without taxation" is not an unreasonable counterpart?

If not, then once I pay taxes once in America, do I retain the right to vote in America ever after I stop payng taxes there?

I'm just curious - its an interesting idea, but I would question the implementation.
jc

The implementation is difficult... that's why I was suggesting that ultimately, residence (read: _physical presence_) is a more useful metric than citizenship.

As an American citizen, I am required to pay any relevant taxes whether or not I am living in the States. Nonetheless, for income earned overseas (subject to certain qualifications), there is a special deduction, currently around $76,000. So on a typical Irish salary, an American here probably wouldn't be liable for much tax-wise. On the other hand, as a citizen living overseas, I do have the right to vote in National elections (the question of keeping a "permanent residence" to vote in state and local elections, while living overseas, can get a bit sticky).

As far as I'm aware, non-citizens living in the US, whether or not they pay taxes, do not have a right to vote. However, they do (generally) have the right to gain citizenship, and earn these rights over a period of time; during the interim, I believe they are given a limited set of the benefits of citizens (depending on their circumstances).

As far as I'm concerned personally, if I am subject to a set of laws, or if I am contributing money to the government, I should have some say in what goes on. Then again, some people are much more apathetic about life.

I think the best model for residency/citizenship is that of the stock market: those who pay into the system have a right as shareholders to provide influence into the way the system does business; and we earn a dividend (social benefits) as a result of our connection to the system. Should we decide to move to another country, we can "sell" our shares, withdrawing our investments into retirement funds and social social services if we so choose, and then "buy in" to our new home.

swiss

Originally posted by colinsky:
I think the best model for residency/citizenship is that of the stock market: those who pay into the system have a right as shareholders to provide influence into the way the system does business; and we earn a dividend (social benefits) as a result of our connection to the system. Should we decide to move to another country, we can "sell" our shares, withdrawing our investments into retirement funds and social social services if we so choose, and then "buy in" to our new home.

I can't believe I'm reading this. Let me understand you correctly, you are suggesting that people should pay for their right to vote for those who represent their interests. This is a far cry from the central tenets of your revered declaration of independence, where "all men are created equal", which therefore implies that they have an equal right to elect their representatives, irrespective of their contribution to the creation of monetary wealth in the country.

Businesses and lobby groups do indeed have a great deal of influence and control over the government. In many cases, especially in relation to the US government, and particularly the current administration, I feel that the level of control that these third party bodies can exert is excessive. However, it is the ultimate remit of the people, the citizens to make sure that the government elected to represent them act in their interests.

I hate to go OT here, but if the suggestion that people should pay for the priviledge of representation, then a considerable percentage of US citizens who live below the poverty line would find themselves ineligable. Therefore, they would not have the opportunity to elect those representatives who they feel could best help them in their plight.

As far as I'm concerned personally, if I am subject to a set of laws, or if I am contributing money to the government, I should have some say in what goes on.

I'm not so certain I agree with you here. The obvious exception (that springs to my mind) are holidaymakers spending some time in another country. I certainly believe that they should respect the laws of the country in which they happen to be visiting, yet I do not feel that their brief stay gives them dispensation to vote in matters of national importance.

Obviously, a line must be drawn somewhere between the length of time a person spends in a country, the activities carried out by that person while in a country and the point at which citizenship can be issued to that individual. Familial ties are another 'grey area' where distant relations in many cases can speed up the process of someone obtaining citizenship. This, I feel is a legislative matter which could be cleared up with a liberal dose of common sense and understanding of the underlying issues involved.

Originally posted by bonkey
There are none, and there should be none.

I feel that citizenship does entail responsibility. People should vote conscientiously, whatever their views or opinions may be. That is, I have no problem with a fascist voting for a right-wing party, or a communist voting for a left-wing party (I'm not referring to the PD's or Labour/SWP here ) as that is the right of the individuals concerned, but I do think that people should make the effort to go out and use the voice afforded to them. i.e. vote.

bonkey

Originally posted by colinsky
As far as I'm aware, non-citizens living in the US, whether or not they pay taxes, do not have a right to vote.

But didnt you also say :

To some degree, I would argue that anyone under the _influence_ of government policy should have a right to have their voice heard on that policy (e.g. the recent abortion referendum)...of course, this is the whole American ideal I've been raised with that hearkens back to the concept of "no taxation without representation".

How is the American ideal any different to the Irish if non-citizens do not get the vote. Granted, you can become an American citizen, but if non-citizen residents do not get a vote, then the ideal of "no taxation without representation" is a bit misleading....its "no representation without citizenship" in reality.

Having said that....

As far as I'm concerned personally, if I am subject to a set of laws, or if I am contributing money to the government, I should have some say in what goes on.

I agree with this in principle - although as Swiss points out, there is a "break-in" period. I would say you need to be in the country at least for 1 full tax year, and still eligible for tax payment, or something like that.

I mean, everyone who visits a country is subject to a set of laws, and every purchase they make is contributing tax through VAT. I know this is taking it to a farcical extreme, but all I'm pointing out is that a line has to be drawn somewhere.....

jc

PHB

I'm proud to be Irish.

I'm just as proud to be Europeon.

Paddy20

Individual citizenship, of one Country or another. Is used by many as a license too ignore their personal humanatarian responsibilities - in relation to the welfare of all other human beings on this planet.

colinsky

Originally posted by swiss
I can't believe I'm reading this. Let me understand you correctly, you are suggesting that people should pay for their right to vote for those who represent their interests

I said "buy", but I wasn't implying that the buying-in necessarily had to be financial/taxes. I accept things such as the amount of time spent in the country, facts of getting settled (being employed, opening a bank account, signing an apartment contract) -- I think what I like is the concept of _establishing_ oneself as a resident rather than a transient/visitor.

Perhaps something reasonable to compare this to is the idea of the "common law marriage"?

I'm not so certain I agree with you here. The obvious exception (that springs to my mind) are holidaymakers spending some time in another country. I certainly believe that they should respect the laws of the country in which they happen to be visiting, yet I do not feel that their brief stay gives them dispensation to vote in matters of national importance.

We actually agree here, I think, once I clear up the confusion I made over the word "buy".

I feel that citizenship does entail responsibility. People should vote conscientiously, whatever their views or opinions may be. That is, I have no problem with a fascist voting for a right-wing party, or a communist voting for a left-wing party (I'm not referring to the PD's or Labour/SWP here ) as that is the right of the individuals concerned, but I do think that people should make the effort to go out and use the voice afforded to them. i.e. vote.

I've heard a lot of argument against it, but I would practically go as far as supporting the idea of _public_ rather than private ballots. I think that responsible voters should be able to explain or defend their reasons for the votes they cast, and if instead they are embarrased or ashamed to admit how they voted, I question the thought behind their vote.