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.
Presumably the same purpose (if any) the deportation of a noncitizen would serve.
Well, no, because citizens have the right to reside, non citizens don’t. As mentioned previously citizen can just rock up to the border and re-enter.
So why not take away those rights of citizens,
Take away citizenship rights? That would create a stateless person. Even if we ignore the fact most countries can’t or won’t do that you’ve now got a scenario where the person you want to deport has no right to reside anywhere.
So when you show up with a plane full of ex Swedes at some airport the receiving country will go “oh those people have no right to be here, entry denied.” At which point you can either take them back to Sweden or leave them on the runway. I’d imagine it wouldn’t take long for most countries to deny entry to any transport leaving Sweden.
if deportation is so beneficial
I don’t believe I’ve said it was beneficial at all.
Well, no, because citizens have the right to reside, non citizens don’t. As mentioned previously citizen can just rock up to the border and re-enter.
Okay, but those rights can of course be taken away. There is plenty of precedent for that, the UK deported undesirables to Australia, and in the interbellum period several European governments opted to take away the rights of those citizens viewed as a threat to public order. Even if citizens aren’t deported, Sweden could opt to, e.g., concentrate them in camps on Gotland or so.
Take away citizenship rights? That would create a stateless person. Even if we ignore the fact most countries can’t or won’t do that you’ve now got a scenario where the person you want to deport has no right to reside anywhere.
Huh, imagine that. One might almost reach the conclusion that citizenship is a problematic concept that perhaps ought not exist at all. Almost. Radical minds might even go as far as suggest that blue-eyed people shouldn’t have different rights from brown-eyed one, or that blondes shouldn’t have different rights than brunettes.
Okay, but those rights can of course be taken away.
In theory, yes, in practice any government that seriously suggested it would likely not last long enough to enact the policy.
There is plenty of precedent for that, the UK deported undesirables to Australia
Penal colonies? No citizenship was lost that I’m aware of and they had the right to return on emancipation. It’s just jail but really really far away. I’m also not entirely sure we should be taking cues from 1700s Britain.
Even if citizens aren’t deported, Sweden could opt to, e.g., concentrate them in camps on Gotland or so.
So prison then, only maybe worse? I’m not sure what your point here is.
Huh, imagine that. One might almost reach the conclusion that citizenship is a problematic concept that perhaps ought not exist at all.
Seems a bit of a jump from any conversation we’ve had here. Given it fundamentally governs the relationship between government and people it’s hard to get away from.
Almost. Radical minds might even go as far as suggest that blue-eyed people shouldn’t have different rights from brown-eyed one, or that blondes shouldn’t have different rights than brunettes.
Comparing citizenship to hair colour is indeed radical, foolish would perhaps be a better word.
In theory, yes, in practice any government that seriously suggested it would likely not last long enough to enact the policy.
Yes, and there will come a day when governments attempting to reintroduce citizenship laws will be viewed in a similar way.
Seems a bit of a jump from any conversation we’ve had here. Given it fundamentally governs the relationship between government and people it’s hard to get away from.
In fact, citizenship as we know it today has only been around for a little over a century. Moreover, we already have a template for how to get rid of it: within the EU, governments must grant equal rights to each EU citizen with only a few exceptions.
Comparing citizenship to hair colour is indeed radical, foolish would perhaps be a better word.
Then you now understand how foolish you would have sounded to the ears of Ferdinand and Isabella if you had dared to suggest Jews and Muslims should have equal rights to Gentiles.
Yes, and there will come a day when governments attempting to reintroduce citizenship laws will be viewed in a similar way.
Maybe, maybe not, none of us can predict the future.
In fact, citizenship as we know it today has only been around for a little over a century. Moreover, we already have a template for how to get rid of it: within the EU, governments must grant equal rights to each EU citizen with only a few exceptions.
So it’s not actually gotten rid of it any way? In fact expulsion is still permissible within the EU. I’m not sure you’re correct about citizenship as we know it only existing for around a century, but maybe our ideas about it are different. Certainly it’s changed, most things do, but it’s always been about the conference of certain rights and responsibilities on individuals.
Then you now understand how foolish you would have sounded to the ears of Ferdinand and Isabella if you had dared to suggest Jews and Muslims should have equal rights to Gentiles.
Do I? I’d imagine a great many modern things would sound foolish to a 1400s monarch. We are, however, living in the present.
Maybe, maybe not, none of us can predict the future.
That is true. However, the overall trend across history, with some interruptions, has been one of decreasing bigotry and narrow-mindedness. With this in mind, it is plausible that insidious discrimination based on citizenship will one day not be as accepted as it is today.
So it’s not actually gotten rid of it any way?
It has, in fact, gotten rid of it in most ways (within the EU).
I’m not sure you’re correct about citizenship as we know it only existing for around a century, but maybe our ideas about it are different. Certainly it’s changed, most things do, but it’s always been about the conference of certain rights and responsibilities on individuals.
My advice to you would be to investigate to what extent you may be incorrect in this matter. For example, did you know that the UK introduced its first limitations to migration (meaning: completely open borders beforehand) in 1905 (bonus points if you can guess which ethnic group the restrictions were primarily targeted at)? Or that, prior to WW1, Europeans could freely travel across borders without border checks or identity documents, which originally were carried only by diplomats, envoys and the like?
Of course, it is true that citizenship did not come out of the blue. Other kinds of caste systems preceded and inspired it. But nationalism itself emerged only in the 19th Century - how could there have been nationalist-based restrictions before the concept even existed? To be sure, there were campaigns of genocide, pogroms and discrimination - but they were often based on informal cultural, tribal, feudal and religious ties, not formal national citizenship.
Do I? I’d imagine a great many modern things would sound foolish to a 1400s monarch. We are, however, living in the present.
Yes, I am aware I am quite far ahead of the primitive mindset of today’s plebeians.
That is true. However, the overall trend across history, with some interruptions, has been one of decreasing bigotry and narrow-mindedness. With this in mind, it is plausible that insidious discrimination based on citizenship will one day not be as accepted as it is today.
Has it? And here’s us talking about how immigration is more restrictive now than it’s ever been.
It has, in fact, gotten rid of it in most ways (within the EU).
So it hasn’t been gotten rid of in any meaningful way, if you except everything that contradicts the point you’re trying to make you can make anything sound true.
My advice to you would be to investigate to what extent you may be incorrect in this matter. For example, did you know that the UK introduced its first limitations to migration (meaning: completely open borders beforehand) in 1905 (bonus points if you can guess which ethnic group the restrictions were primarily targeted at)? Or that, prior to WW1, Europeans could freely travel across borders without border checks or identity documents, which originally were carried only by diplomats, envoys and the like?
Yeah, I thought that was what you were getting at - that would be immigration policy, not the fundamental role of citizenship.
Of course, it is true that citizenship did not come out of the blue. Other kinds of caste systems preceded and inspired it. But nationalism itself emerged only in the 19th Century - how could there have been nationalist-based restrictions before the concept even existed?
You’re right, citizenship has been around for thousands of years. Again you appear to be confusing immigration policy with citizenship.
To be sure, there were campaigns of genocide, pogroms and discrimination - but they were often based on informal cultural, tribal, feudal and religious ties, not formal national citizenship.
Just getting into hyperbole now, deporting an individual criminal is not the same as a genocide or a pogrom. Tell me this, at what time in history were individuals free to join a social grouping and benefit from the shared collective without the assent of the group?
Yes, I am aware I am quite far ahead of the primitive mindset of today’s plebeians
You’re certainly conceited, much more than that I can’t say.
So it hasn’t been gotten rid of in any meaningful way
You don’t have to take my word for it, you can just look up in which ways citizenship still matters. This might be an instructive exercise.
You’re right, citizenship has been around for thousands of years.
Is your claim really that a medieval French peasant living in the countryside near Paris (and thus a subject of the King of France) was a “French citizen”? Again, citizenship associated with nation states could not exist, because nation states didn’t!
Again you appear to be confusing immigration policy with citizenship.
I am not “confusing” anything. However, immigration laws are obviously one of the main vehicles of citizenship-based discrimination.
Tell me this, at what time in history were individuals free to join a social grouping and benefit from the shared collective without the assent of the group?
Well, in the UK prior to 1905. Of course there were informal ways in which “groups” of various kinds would not “assent.” The antisemitism of those days became the driving force to formalize the bigotry that until then had only been informally expressed.
You don’t have to take my word for it, you can just look up in which ways citizenship still matters. This might be an instructive exercise.
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
These all seem fairly major to me.
Is your claim really that a medieval French peasant living in the countryside near Paris (and thus a subject of the King of France) was a “French citizen”? Again, citizenship associated with nation states could not exist, because nation states didn’t!
No, I didn’t say anything about medieval French citizens.
I am not “confusing” anything. However, immigration laws are obviously one of the main vehicles of citizenship-based discrimination.
Okay, it’s just because you keep talking about immigration policy and then saying it’s citizenship.
Well, in the UK prior to 1905. Of course there were informal ways in which “groups” of various kinds would not “assent.” The antisemitism of those days became the driving force to formalize the bigotry that until then had only been informally expressed.
Why are we bringing bigotry and anti-Semitism into it? If me and my mates go to play a game of football and a random guy appears and starts playing and hoofing the ball every which way so we go get security to remove him it’s got nothing to do with anti-Semitism. I’m not saying there haven’t been exclusions based on religion, but it’s entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
Well, no, because citizens have the right to reside, non citizens don’t. As mentioned previously citizen can just rock up to the border and re-enter.
Take away citizenship rights? That would create a stateless person. Even if we ignore the fact most countries can’t or won’t do that you’ve now got a scenario where the person you want to deport has no right to reside anywhere.
So when you show up with a plane full of ex Swedes at some airport the receiving country will go “oh those people have no right to be here, entry denied.” At which point you can either take them back to Sweden or leave them on the runway. I’d imagine it wouldn’t take long for most countries to deny entry to any transport leaving Sweden.
I don’t believe I’ve said it was beneficial at all.
Okay, but those rights can of course be taken away. There is plenty of precedent for that, the UK deported undesirables to Australia, and in the interbellum period several European governments opted to take away the rights of those citizens viewed as a threat to public order. Even if citizens aren’t deported, Sweden could opt to, e.g., concentrate them in camps on Gotland or so.
Huh, imagine that. One might almost reach the conclusion that citizenship is a problematic concept that perhaps ought not exist at all. Almost. Radical minds might even go as far as suggest that blue-eyed people shouldn’t have different rights from brown-eyed one, or that blondes shouldn’t have different rights than brunettes.
In theory, yes, in practice any government that seriously suggested it would likely not last long enough to enact the policy.
Penal colonies? No citizenship was lost that I’m aware of and they had the right to return on emancipation. It’s just jail but really really far away. I’m also not entirely sure we should be taking cues from 1700s Britain.
So prison then, only maybe worse? I’m not sure what your point here is.
Seems a bit of a jump from any conversation we’ve had here. Given it fundamentally governs the relationship between government and people it’s hard to get away from.
Comparing citizenship to hair colour is indeed radical, foolish would perhaps be a better word.
Yes, and there will come a day when governments attempting to reintroduce citizenship laws will be viewed in a similar way.
In fact, citizenship as we know it today has only been around for a little over a century. Moreover, we already have a template for how to get rid of it: within the EU, governments must grant equal rights to each EU citizen with only a few exceptions.
Then you now understand how foolish you would have sounded to the ears of Ferdinand and Isabella if you had dared to suggest Jews and Muslims should have equal rights to Gentiles.
Maybe, maybe not, none of us can predict the future.
So it’s not actually gotten rid of it any way? In fact expulsion is still permissible within the EU. I’m not sure you’re correct about citizenship as we know it only existing for around a century, but maybe our ideas about it are different. Certainly it’s changed, most things do, but it’s always been about the conference of certain rights and responsibilities on individuals.
Do I? I’d imagine a great many modern things would sound foolish to a 1400s monarch. We are, however, living in the present.
That is true. However, the overall trend across history, with some interruptions, has been one of decreasing bigotry and narrow-mindedness. With this in mind, it is plausible that insidious discrimination based on citizenship will one day not be as accepted as it is today.
It has, in fact, gotten rid of it in most ways (within the EU).
My advice to you would be to investigate to what extent you may be incorrect in this matter. For example, did you know that the UK introduced its first limitations to migration (meaning: completely open borders beforehand) in 1905 (bonus points if you can guess which ethnic group the restrictions were primarily targeted at)? Or that, prior to WW1, Europeans could freely travel across borders without border checks or identity documents, which originally were carried only by diplomats, envoys and the like?
Of course, it is true that citizenship did not come out of the blue. Other kinds of caste systems preceded and inspired it. But nationalism itself emerged only in the 19th Century - how could there have been nationalist-based restrictions before the concept even existed? To be sure, there were campaigns of genocide, pogroms and discrimination - but they were often based on informal cultural, tribal, feudal and religious ties, not formal national citizenship.
Yes, I am aware I am quite far ahead of the primitive mindset of today’s plebeians.
Has it? And here’s us talking about how immigration is more restrictive now than it’s ever been.
So it hasn’t been gotten rid of in any meaningful way, if you except everything that contradicts the point you’re trying to make you can make anything sound true.
Yeah, I thought that was what you were getting at - that would be immigration policy, not the fundamental role of citizenship.
You’re right, citizenship has been around for thousands of years. Again you appear to be confusing immigration policy with citizenship.
Just getting into hyperbole now, deporting an individual criminal is not the same as a genocide or a pogrom. Tell me this, at what time in history were individuals free to join a social grouping and benefit from the shared collective without the assent of the group?
You’re certainly conceited, much more than that I can’t say.
You don’t have to take my word for it, you can just look up in which ways citizenship still matters. This might be an instructive exercise.
Is your claim really that a medieval French peasant living in the countryside near Paris (and thus a subject of the King of France) was a “French citizen”? Again, citizenship associated with nation states could not exist, because nation states didn’t!
I am not “confusing” anything. However, immigration laws are obviously one of the main vehicles of citizenship-based discrimination.
Well, in the UK prior to 1905. Of course there were informal ways in which “groups” of various kinds would not “assent.” The antisemitism of those days became the driving force to formalize the bigotry that until then had only been informally expressed.
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
These all seem fairly major to me.
No, I didn’t say anything about medieval French citizens.
Okay, it’s just because you keep talking about immigration policy and then saying it’s citizenship.
Why are we bringing bigotry and anti-Semitism into it? If me and my mates go to play a game of football and a random guy appears and starts playing and hoofing the ball every which way so we go get security to remove him it’s got nothing to do with anti-Semitism. I’m not saying there haven’t been exclusions based on religion, but it’s entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.