Brian Peacock wrote:
You know this, and I know this, but for some people it seems that additional conditions need to be met before US-born children of immigrants can fulfil their special definition of a 'proper' citizen.
I've never heard anyone in the US refer to people as "proper" citizens vs. "not proper" citizens. I know there are some folks out there who object to birthright citizenship. But, the norm in western, civilized countries is to reject birthright citizenship and to require more than that.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Mr C's implied erection of such conditions may represent a minority viewpoint, but it's one that doesn't go unexpressed among the raggedy-edge of right-leaning politics.
Or, left-leaning politics. I don't see the leftists in Europe marching to allow "citizenship by birth" to the children of immigrants or illegal immigrants.
Brian Peacock wrote:
By my lights it's a view that relies on fundamental 'us-and-them' distinctions, with the 'us' representing the real- or true-citizen and the 'them' representing those who are thought of as legal inhabitants of a particular nation in name only.
This is not an uncommon view, given that we have nations, and we have ethnicities, and often there is an ethnicity that corresponds roughly with the nation. It's like "Sweden." It's people are "Swedish." Now, a Somali who becomes a Swedish citizen can call himself a "Swede." But, that Somali is ethnically Somalian and not Swedish. So, it wouldn't be really all that weird or nefarious for an ethnic Swede to not consider the Somali person "Swedish" even if he is a Swedish citizen. He'd be a Somali-Swede, or an African-Swede, whereas if you say "Swede" it paints a picture an ethnic Swede.
Brian Peacock wrote:
While such a disavowing of 'true' citizenship might also imply the existence of certain cultural, religious, and/or racial resentments, most reasonable people will acknowledge that concepts like a 'national culture' and a 'national identity' are not, and have never really been, fixed monoliths with well-defined, discrete boundaries--instead being more like emergent properties born of a mélange of overlapping cultures and identities--resentors like Mr C consider their own ideas of national culture and identity as a fixed given - indeed, as a kind of absolute property which only they themselves, and people like them, embody.
This is not limited to right wing politics, although I grant that right-wing politics in the west tends to support the notion of a fixed ethnic nationalism. I.e. - the BNP in Britain means something specific when they want to keep things British. And, if a Norwegian is tired of losing their nation, they are generally thinking about classic Norwegian ethnicity.
This is just the other side of the identity politics coin, though, which includes the notion of fixed national cultures or ethnic cultures when dealing with "marginalized" groups. Their culture, there ethnicity is an absolute property which nobody else can horn in on or they are "appropriating" the culture. It's the same concept, just advanced with what the proponents think is a good motive.
Brian Peacock wrote:
In the end this viewpoint renders the concepts of nationality, and thus citizenship, down to the baseline of a preferred personal trait rather than a simple matter of legal qualification.
Agreed. But it's really in the nature of nations. Nations generally formed around ethnicities. Like, how people accept that Saudi Arab is an Arab Muslim nation, right? And, if I move to Saudi Arabia with my wife and we have three kids there, nobody is going to just declare my kids "Saudi Arabians." We're white European genetically, so we'd not be unqualifiedly accepted there as Arabians or Arab. We might gain Saudi citizenship, but culturally, people would "view" us as different, because we are different.
Brian Peacock wrote:
From there it is only a small step--but nonetheless a self-reinforcing one--to the idea that those who do not embody or express these preferred personal traits are not 'true', 'proper', or 'real' citizens, that they do not therefore 'belong' in the country, and/or that they should not be afforded the freedoms and protections which true, proper, real citizens are entitled to by right.
Well, that's where a good, solid secular constitution and government built on liberal Enlightenment values, including the right of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and rights to be secure in one's persons, houses, papers and effects, and other individual rights and liberties work wonders to preserve a nationality, while allowing people to freely associate into "ethnicities." One group can view another group all they want as "less than" or "other," but the law has built in equalizers allowing ever asshole to associate with their own brand of asshole all they want.
Brian Peacock wrote:
If this is the case with Mr C, as it undoubtedly is with some of those who inhabit the unwashed crevices of the political spectrum, then it basically amounts to bigotry, to wit; erecting a position which maintains that those who are not like us do not deserve the respect and regard that we expect and demand for ourselves.
Well, perhaps so, but you can't compel people to respect other people.
Brian Peacock wrote:
As L'Emmy pointed out, a contrast can be drawn between citizenship as a right of blood or as a right of soil. However, as I hinted in the OP, if one is to hold to the primacy of jus sanguinis over jus soli, as Mr C appears to do, then when, if ever, can anyone ever maintain a legitimate claim to any kind of nationality or national identity other than by defining citizenship in terms of an ancestral right - in which case, through how many generations must we travel back before one's pure and true nationality shines out?
None of that is determinable in any objective sense. The reality is that if you have a largely homogeneous country, like Denmark or something, where most everybody is white, blond, blue eyed, etc. - similar ethnicity - then it's going to be hard to have someone come from a black African ethnicity and say "I'm a Dane." He can say that via legal nationality, because he's been naturalized, and his kids might technically be "Danish" born, but they still won't be "ethnically Danish." It's not determined by tracing back a lineage of an individual and saying "oh, you have 3 generations here, now you're ethnically Danish." It's more of a comparison of the individual with the overall population. If 90% of the population is typically Danish, with the Scandinavian type features, then a person who is 100% genetically black African, but who has had ancestors living in Denmark since 1802, he's not ethnically Danish.
Brian Peacock wrote:
Whodda thunk that Mr C's three-word non-answer could inspire so much guff eh?
If arguing endlessly over three word non-answers wasn't allowed, most forum discussion boards would lose their entire purpose.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
