Sweden’s government on Tuesday said it would put forward a bill introducing a requirement for migrants to adhere to an “honest living” or face deportation.
Non-citizens can be expelled Non-citizens don’t have the right to vote in national elections Non-citizens don’t always have access to welfare
EU citizens have the same rights to welfare as citizens do in EU countries. They also have partial voting rights. EU citizens can be expelled only under exceptional circumstances.
It would be trivial - and desirable - to eliminate these restrictions.
No, I didn’t say anything about medieval French citizens.
So, of which nation state was said peasant a “citizen”?
Why are we bringing bigotry and anti-Semitism into it?
Because, in this specific example, antisemitism was the reason immigration laws were created in the first place. In other cases, other types of bigotry and xenophobia might have played a role.
EU citizens have the same rights to welfare as citizens do in EU countries.
As far as I know in Germany at least you need 5 years residence before fully qualifying for welfare if you’re not a German citizen.
They also have partial voting rights. EU citizens can be expelled only under exceptional circumstances.
So they can’t vote in national elections as I said. You can be expelled or denied residence on health grounds or public policy grounds. Regardless, you can be expelled, as I said. Some government jobs are also not available to non-citizens.
It would be trivial - and desirable - to eliminate these restrictions.
You just state stuff as if it’s true and must be accepted. This is just an opinion. Presumably if it were both desirable and trivial it would already be the case, no?
So, of which nation state was said peasant a “citizen”?
You can probably trace citizenship back to the ancient Greeks in one form or another, but you’ll likely try and change the definition to have to be about nation states or some other narrow definition to suit your point again, so there’s not really much point in trying to discuss it.
Because, in this specific example, antisemitism was the reason immigration laws were created in the first place. In other cases, other types of bigotry and xenophobia might have played a role.
This specific example was chosen by you, presumably because it was an example of antisemitism. I was thinking more like Ug and his gang in the stone age, but it doesn’t really matter. Tribes\social groupings have existed as far back as we have history, who, how and when people are excluded is varied and nuanced but not everything is a racist or bigoted action.
As far as I know in Germany at least you need 5 years residence before fully qualifying for welfare if you’re not a German citizen.
A residency requirement is not a citizenship requirement. A practical example, of some relevance to my personal situation. In the Netherlands, part of the retirement system is a basic income for the elderly. The requirement for receiving this basic income is having been a resident as an adult. So a Dutch citizen who lived part of their adult life outside of the Netherlands and moves back when retiring will only receive some part of the basic income. However, a Belgian citizen (for example) who spent their adult life in the Netherlands will receive the full amount.
Anyway, the only point I wanted to make is that it is possible for EU citizenship to entirely replace national citizenship - as it already does to a large degree. And if that can be done for a continent, it can be done globally.
You just state stuff as if it’s true and must be accepted. This is just an opinion. Presumably if it were both desirable and trivial it would already be the case, no?
What an odd argument. Was it not desirable and trivial to abolish antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany?
You can probably trace citizenship back to the ancient Greeks
Instead of guessing what origin citizenship might have, why not simply look up its actual history? I can sympathize with the plight of someone who has been inundated with a bukkake of nationalist propaganda throughout their lifetime, so let me give the synopsis. Citizenship gradually emerged in the modern period in Europe and during that time replaced the previous system, which included four castes (estates): the nobility, the clergy, the burghers (from which the word “citizen” derives - citizen, city, get it?) and the peasants/serfs. Some remnants of these castes remain, but for the most part the modern citizen grew from what used to be the burgher class. Indeed, in many proto-democracies, voting rights were initially restricted to the landowning class (i.e. burghers), while peasants remained formally discriminated against. The distinction, at least formally and legally, faded away roughly around the time of WW1 (around which time many European governments also abolished the nobility, or reduced them to ceremonial roles only), and from this point we can say there is something resembling modern citizenship, and a system with just two castes: citizens and non-citizens. (Next step: a system with just one caste: people.)
This specific example was chosen by you, presumably because it was an example of antisemitism. I was thinking more like Ug and his gang in the stone age, but it doesn’t really matter. Tribes\social groupings have existed as far back as we have history, who, how and when people are excluded is varied and nuanced but not everything is a racist or bigoted action.
Yes, tribalism is as old as mankind. Yet, while you can seemingly recognize there is something wrong with Ug and his gang being bigoted against the next tribe, the nobility and clergy being bigoted against the peasantry, and Adolf and his gang being bigoted against Jews, you can’t quite seem to grasp how citizenship-based discrimination is equally problematic and equally rooted in bigotry.
Some day, even someone as enlightened as myself (by today’s rather unimpressive standards) will likely be viewed as backward and narrow-minded. Will we live to see it? Unlikely. The brown winds are gathering; fascism is now the most popular ideology in the West by far, and the last time this was the case things did not end well. Even so, I have some optimism that the aftermath of WW3 will induce some self-reflection on the side of humanity, and a reassessment of citizenship as a concept.
A residency requirement is not a citizenship requirement. A practical example, of some relevance to my personal situation. In the Netherlands, part of the retirement system is a basic income for the elderly. The requirement for receiving this basic income is having been a resident as an adult. So a Dutch citizen who lived part of their adult life outside of the Netherlands and moves back when retiring will only receive some part of the basic income. However, a Belgian citizen (for example) who spent their adult life in the Netherlands will receive the full amount.
I never said it was, German citizens get access to the benefit without the residency requirement.
What an odd argument. Was it not desirable and trivial to abolish antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany?
No, clearly it wasn’t, it took a world war to abolish them.
Instead of guessing what origin citizenship might have, why not simply look up its actual history? I can sympathize with the plight of someone who has been inundated with a bukkake of nationalist propaganda throughout their lifetime, so let me give the synopsis. Citizenship gradually emerged in the modern period in Europe and during that time replaced the previous system, which included four castes (estates): the nobility, the clergy, the burghers (from which the word “citizen” derives - citizen, city, get it?) and the peasants/serfs. Some remnants of these castes remain, but for the most part the modern citizen grew from what used to be the burgher class. Indeed, in many proto-democracies, voting rights were initially restricted to the landowning class (i.e. burghers), while peasants remained formally discriminated against. The distinction, at least formally and legally, faded away roughly around the time of WW1 (around which time many European governments also abolished the nobility, or reduced them to ceremonial roles only), and from this point we can say there is something resembling modern citizenship, and a system with just two castes: citizens and non-citizens. (Next step: a system with just one caste: people.)
I did, it’s generally accepted to have it’s origins in ancient Greece.
Yes, tribalism is as old as mankind. Yet, while you can seemingly recognize there is something wrong with Ug and his gang being bigoted against the next tribe, the nobility and clergy being bigoted against the peasantry, and Adolf and his gang being bigoted against Jews, you can’t quite seem to grasp how citizenship-based discrimination is equally problematic and equally rooted in bigotry.
No, I expressly said it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with bigotry.
Some day, even someone as enlightened as myself (by today’s rather unimpressive standards) will likely be viewed as backward and narrow-minded. Will we live to see it? Unlikely. The brown winds are gathering; fascism is now the most popular ideology in the West by far, and the last time this was the case things did not end well. Even so, I have some optimism that the aftermath of WW3 will induce some self-reflection on the side of humanity, and a reassessment of citizenship as a concept.
I never said it was, German citizens get access to the benefit without the residency requirement.
That’s illegal by EU law. German citizens who move from abroad to Germany must be treated the same way as other EU citizens when it comes to social security.
No, clearly it wasn’t, it took a world war to abolish them.
It would have been trivial to abolish them, from a legal and administrative perspective.
I did, it’s generally accepted to have it’s (sic) origins in ancient Greece.
That’s incorrect on both counts. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it, you are free to read about it yourself.
That’s illegal by EU law. German citizens who move from abroad to Germany must be treated the same way as other EU citizens when it comes to social security.
Must or are?
It would have been trivial to abolish them, from a legal and administrative perspective.
And yet from a practical standpoint it was not.
That’s incorrect on both counts. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it, you are free to read about it yourself.
Must. I know from practical experience reality and legal principle are not always in agreement. The point, however, is that it’s possible.
The abolition of individual national citizenship was, of course, always the endgame of European federalists. It’s why European citizenship exists as a concept.
And yet from a practical standpoint it was not.
Yes, I am aware that the concept of equal rights is not a popular one. I am speaking only about the administrative and legal route to effect such a concept, not about popularizing it among the lumpen proletariat, for which I am, admittedly, quite unsuitable.
I did and that’s what I found.
Even Wikipedia’s article on the history of citizenship, which (unsurprisingly) takes a much more nuanced view than I do and discusses the (tenuous) link between the polis and modern citizenship at length, does not come within light years of suggesting it is “generally accepted” that it “has origins in ancient Greece.” The ruling caste of the polis has much stronger parallels with the Kshatriyas than with modern citizenship.
EU citizens have the same rights to welfare as citizens do in EU countries. They also have partial voting rights. EU citizens can be expelled only under exceptional circumstances.
It would be trivial - and desirable - to eliminate these restrictions.
So, of which nation state was said peasant a “citizen”?
Because, in this specific example, antisemitism was the reason immigration laws were created in the first place. In other cases, other types of bigotry and xenophobia might have played a role.
As far as I know in Germany at least you need 5 years residence before fully qualifying for welfare if you’re not a German citizen.
So they can’t vote in national elections as I said. You can be expelled or denied residence on health grounds or public policy grounds. Regardless, you can be expelled, as I said. Some government jobs are also not available to non-citizens.
You just state stuff as if it’s true and must be accepted. This is just an opinion. Presumably if it were both desirable and trivial it would already be the case, no?
You can probably trace citizenship back to the ancient Greeks in one form or another, but you’ll likely try and change the definition to have to be about nation states or some other narrow definition to suit your point again, so there’s not really much point in trying to discuss it.
This specific example was chosen by you, presumably because it was an example of antisemitism. I was thinking more like Ug and his gang in the stone age, but it doesn’t really matter. Tribes\social groupings have existed as far back as we have history, who, how and when people are excluded is varied and nuanced but not everything is a racist or bigoted action.
A residency requirement is not a citizenship requirement. A practical example, of some relevance to my personal situation. In the Netherlands, part of the retirement system is a basic income for the elderly. The requirement for receiving this basic income is having been a resident as an adult. So a Dutch citizen who lived part of their adult life outside of the Netherlands and moves back when retiring will only receive some part of the basic income. However, a Belgian citizen (for example) who spent their adult life in the Netherlands will receive the full amount.
Anyway, the only point I wanted to make is that it is possible for EU citizenship to entirely replace national citizenship - as it already does to a large degree. And if that can be done for a continent, it can be done globally.
What an odd argument. Was it not desirable and trivial to abolish antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany?
Instead of guessing what origin citizenship might have, why not simply look up its actual history? I can sympathize with the plight of someone who has been inundated with a bukkake of nationalist propaganda throughout their lifetime, so let me give the synopsis. Citizenship gradually emerged in the modern period in Europe and during that time replaced the previous system, which included four castes (estates): the nobility, the clergy, the burghers (from which the word “citizen” derives - citizen, city, get it?) and the peasants/serfs. Some remnants of these castes remain, but for the most part the modern citizen grew from what used to be the burgher class. Indeed, in many proto-democracies, voting rights were initially restricted to the landowning class (i.e. burghers), while peasants remained formally discriminated against. The distinction, at least formally and legally, faded away roughly around the time of WW1 (around which time many European governments also abolished the nobility, or reduced them to ceremonial roles only), and from this point we can say there is something resembling modern citizenship, and a system with just two castes: citizens and non-citizens. (Next step: a system with just one caste: people.)
Yes, tribalism is as old as mankind. Yet, while you can seemingly recognize there is something wrong with Ug and his gang being bigoted against the next tribe, the nobility and clergy being bigoted against the peasantry, and Adolf and his gang being bigoted against Jews, you can’t quite seem to grasp how citizenship-based discrimination is equally problematic and equally rooted in bigotry.
Some day, even someone as enlightened as myself (by today’s rather unimpressive standards) will likely be viewed as backward and narrow-minded. Will we live to see it? Unlikely. The brown winds are gathering; fascism is now the most popular ideology in the West by far, and the last time this was the case things did not end well. Even so, I have some optimism that the aftermath of WW3 will induce some self-reflection on the side of humanity, and a reassessment of citizenship as a concept.
I never said it was, German citizens get access to the benefit without the residency requirement.
No, clearly it wasn’t, it took a world war to abolish them.
I did, it’s generally accepted to have it’s origins in ancient Greece.
No, I expressly said it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with bigotry.
Aaaaaad we’re back to conceit.
That’s illegal by EU law. German citizens who move from abroad to Germany must be treated the same way as other EU citizens when it comes to social security.
It would have been trivial to abolish them, from a legal and administrative perspective.
That’s incorrect on both counts. Again, you don’t have to take my word for it, you are free to read about it yourself.
Must or are?
And yet from a practical standpoint it was not.
I did and that’s what I found.
Must. I know from practical experience reality and legal principle are not always in agreement. The point, however, is that it’s possible.
The abolition of individual national citizenship was, of course, always the endgame of European federalists. It’s why European citizenship exists as a concept.
Yes, I am aware that the concept of equal rights is not a popular one. I am speaking only about the administrative and legal route to effect such a concept, not about popularizing it among the lumpen proletariat, for which I am, admittedly, quite unsuitable.
Even Wikipedia’s article on the history of citizenship, which (unsurprisingly) takes a much more nuanced view than I do and discusses the (tenuous) link between the polis and modern citizenship at length, does not come within light years of suggesting it is “generally accepted” that it “has origins in ancient Greece.” The ruling caste of the polis has much stronger parallels with the Kshatriyas than with modern citizenship.