4 ms·

It's not really the same force! And it's very easy to observe that they're not the same by looking at city, county and state boundaries in the US. The governmen

It's not really the same force! And it's very easy to observe that they're not the same by looking at city, county and state boundaries in the US. The governments of those jurisdictions don't require "citizenship", they simply assume jurisdiction over whoever is physically within their boundaries at any given moment. (And yet they still enforce property laws!) Nations could very conceivably operate the same way in the future.

zeveb 8y ago
U.S. states certainly do have a concept of citizenship! It defines, among other things, who can vote. Now, it's been watered down by the well-intentioned Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship in their state of residence to citizens of the U.S. (the amendment's laudable goal was to prevent the former slave states from denying citizenship to their black residents), but it certainly doesn't have to be that way. I'd very much support an amendment which states that one is a citizen of one's state of birth in the same way that one is a citizen of the United States by birth, and that any citizen of the United States may be naturalised into another state voluntarily and under the laws of that state, such laws being subject to Congressional override. That would enable each state to ensure that its citizens are actually citizens (i.e., with a knowledge of & hopefully respect for its history & traditions), while preventing states from refusing citizenship to a class of citizens and giving the federal government the authority to correct unjust state regulations.
bena 8y ago
Yes, because all of those areas are in a covenant with each other. A Union of sorts. They've given up some measure of power to a larger federation in order to reduce their own overhead. But to be a part of that federation, they have to allow certain things. Nations could technically operate the same way, but only as part of a larger collective. There would need to be some agreed upon rules, some governing body to oversee enforcement of those rules, etc. Certain things would need to be agreed upon. What could each nation have autonomy on, what would they need to give up, what would they need to start doing, etc.

zeveb 8y ago

U.S. states certainly do have a concept of citizenship! It defines, among other things, who can vote. Now, it's been watered down by the well-intentioned Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship in their state of residence to citizens of the U.S. (the amendment's laudable goal was to prevent the former slave states from denying citizenship to their black residents), but it certainly doesn't have to be that way. I'd very much support an amendment which states that one is a citizen of one's state of birth in the same way that one is a citizen of the United States by birth, and that any citizen of the United States may be naturalised into another state voluntarily and under the laws of that state, such laws being subject to Congressional override. That would enable each state to ensure that its citizens are actually citizens (i.e., with a knowledge of & hopefully respect for its history & traditions), while preventing states from refusing citizenship to a class of citizens and giving the federal government the authority to correct unjust state regulations.

bena 8y ago

Yes, because all of those areas are in a covenant with each other. A Union of sorts. They've given up some measure of power to a larger federation in order to reduce their own overhead. But to be a part of that federation, they have to allow certain things. Nations could technically operate the same way, but only as part of a larger collective. There would need to be some agreed upon rules, some governing body to oversee enforcement of those rules, etc. Certain things would need to be agreed upon. What could each nation have autonomy on, what would they need to give up, what would they need to start doing, etc.