3 ms·

Again, I am explicitly not making a semantic argument. I made my point about citizenship clear, and it does not depend on any particular definition of the word

by baddox 8y ago

Again, I am explicitly not making a semantic argument. I made my point about citizenship clear, and it does not depend on any particular definition of the word “American.” I am saying that the choice of legal definition of citizenship is arbitrary, not that it is poorly-defined. Legal definitions vary a lot from country to country. Again, I’m saying it’s a bad choice for the threshold at which a government should protect and care about an inhabitant of its jurisdiction. > claiming they shouldn’t put American citizens first is dubious at best That’s precisely the claim that I’m saying is extremely dubious. How is it reasonable to say that people who fit the precise definition of citizenship in US law (usually through no choice or action they made) should be prioritized over other inhabitants of the same country? I agree that this is a common belief, and I’m challenging people to justify the belief.

remarkEon 8y ago
Because without some distinction of who has responsibilities and obligations to the Sovereign state then we can't have any sort of consistency at all in how we govern ourselves. This is a concept that has deep philosophical underpinnings, coming from Aristotle to Plato and elsewhere. To put in bluntly: Citizens have skin in the game in a way "inhabitants" don't. If the social fabric of a nation-state starts to break down, the Citizens are the ones that have to deal with the consequences. The only way we've come up with to denote who has to deal with this is the Citizenship marker. I'm curious. Where is this new belief that "Citizenship" is a concept that needs to be blown up coming from? It appears to have become quite common over the last couple years. It has to be coming from somewhere.
- baddox 8y ago
  I don’t understand the “skin in the game” argument at all. How is it worse for a citizen than a non-citizen if the social fabric of the state breaks down? Besides, this seems like a bizarre argument for why citizens should have “first dibs” at jobs. What does that have anything to do with a doomsday scenario? As for the necessity of making distinctions regarding obligations to the state, how is that relevant, particularly to job prioritization? Other than perhaps military conscription and some tax laws, I’m not aware of many significant differences in obligations between citizens and non-citizens, and especially of any with any relevance to job prioritization. > Where is this new belief that "Citizenship" is a concept that needs to be blown up coming from? I haven’t expressed any such belief, nor do I hold it. I just see no good reason for a government to prioritize citizens above non-citizen inhabitants, especially for job availability.
  - remarkEon 8y ago
    >I don’t understand the “skin in the game” argument at all. How is it worse for a citizen than a non-citizen if the social fabric of the state breaks down? Because the "inhabitants" can just go home, while the Citizens are stuck here - this is their home. >Besides, this seems like a bizarre argument for why citizens should have “first dibs” at jobs. This is literally what a sovereign government is supposed to do: provide for and prioritize the needs of it's citizens. If your contention is that anyone should be able to come here and be afforded the same protections we'll just keep talking past each other (which I think we already are). It sounds like, by extension and since you don't consider "Citizen" a meaningful distinction, that "inhabitants" should have the same voting rights as Citizens. This is a recipe for chaos. >I just see no good reason for a government to prioritize citizens above non-citizen inhabitants, especially for job availability. Then you've missed a lot of reading on what the entire purpose of Government even is.
    - baddox 8y ago
      > Because the "inhabitants" can just go home, while the Citizens are stuck here - this is their home. I highly doubt that most immigrants who come to the US to work are buying and maintaining a second home, and are instead making America their new home. > This is literally what a sovereign government is supposed to do: provide for and prioritize the needs of it's citizens. This is precisely the claim I am disputing and looking for some justification. “Most people believe this” is not a very good justification for anything, so I’m challenging people to question why they believe it and why it’s a reasonable desire. “High school textbooks say that governments should do this” is also not a great justification in my opinion.
- closeparen 8y ago
  We're not talking about tourists here. Immigrant workers routinely become married homeowners and parents with extensive personal and professional networks in the US and few links to their countries of origin. My long-tenured H1B coworkers would do no better upon moving to India or China than I would, save for language skills. But that's moot anyway. If the US decides to kick them out and they have to give up their current lives anyway, we'll move them to a third country with deterministic approval for skilled workers, like The Netherlands. Americans can flee to Canada or any number of other countries which open their doors to us, just as the draft-dodgers did when the "social fabric of the nation-state broke down." I agree it's weird to blow up citizenship as a concept. We should be talking about making citizenship actually possible for the people who are committed to it, not locked away behind quotas and waiting lists.
- Faark 8y ago
  > Where is this new belief that "Citizenship" is a concept that needs to be blown up coming from? My guess is this being a counter reaction to today's "build a wall and screw the others" mentality displayed in politics. I do understand people are tribal. I also care more about people closer to me. But nowadays our lives are highly interconnected and profit off each other, thus i need those to do well as well. The problem is overcoming the prisoners dilemma of short term tribal benefits vs long term global benefits. The focus on citizens over others seems a obstacle to that. Especially these days, where those "others" seem to be a great political scapegoat for all the other problems slowly breaking down the fabric of our society.

by baddox 8y ago

remarkEon 8y ago

Because without some distinction of who has responsibilities and obligations to the Sovereign state then we can't have any sort of consistency at all in how we govern ourselves. This is a concept that has deep philosophical underpinnings, coming from Aristotle to Plato and elsewhere. To put in bluntly: Citizens have skin in the game in a way "inhabitants" don't. If the social fabric of a nation-state starts to break down, the Citizens are the ones that have to deal with the consequences. The only way we've come up with to denote who has to deal with this is the Citizenship marker. I'm curious. Where is this new belief that "Citizenship" is a concept that needs to be blown up coming from? It appears to have become quite common over the last couple years. It has to be coming from somewhere.

baddox 8y ago
I don’t understand the “skin in the game” argument at all. How is it worse for a citizen than a non-citizen if the social fabric of the state breaks down? Besides, this seems like a bizarre argument for why citizens should have “first dibs” at jobs. What does that have anything to do with a doomsday scenario? As for the necessity of making distinctions regarding obligations to the state, how is that relevant, particularly to job prioritization? Other than perhaps military conscription and some tax laws, I’m not aware of many significant differences in obligations between citizens and non-citizens, and especially of any with any relevance to job prioritization. > Where is this new belief that "Citizenship" is a concept that needs to be blown up coming from? I haven’t expressed any such belief, nor do I hold it. I just see no good reason for a government to prioritize citizens above non-citizen inhabitants, especially for job availability.
- remarkEon 8y ago
  >I don’t understand the “skin in the game” argument at all. How is it worse for a citizen than a non-citizen if the social fabric of the state breaks down? Because the "inhabitants" can just go home, while the Citizens are stuck here - this is their home. >Besides, this seems like a bizarre argument for why citizens should have “first dibs” at jobs. This is literally what a sovereign government is supposed to do: provide for and prioritize the needs of it's citizens. If your contention is that anyone should be able to come here and be afforded the same protections we'll just keep talking past each other (which I think we already are). It sounds like, by extension and since you don't consider "Citizen" a meaningful distinction, that "inhabitants" should have the same voting rights as Citizens. This is a recipe for chaos. >I just see no good reason for a government to prioritize citizens above non-citizen inhabitants, especially for job availability. Then you've missed a lot of reading on what the entire purpose of Government even is.
  - baddox 8y ago
    > Because the "inhabitants" can just go home, while the Citizens are stuck here - this is their home. I highly doubt that most immigrants who come to the US to work are buying and maintaining a second home, and are instead making America their new home. > This is literally what a sovereign government is supposed to do: provide for and prioritize the needs of it's citizens. This is precisely the claim I am disputing and looking for some justification. “Most people believe this” is not a very good justification for anything, so I’m challenging people to question why they believe it and why it’s a reasonable desire. “High school textbooks say that governments should do this” is also not a great justification in my opinion.
closeparen 8y ago
We're not talking about tourists here. Immigrant workers routinely become married homeowners and parents with extensive personal and professional networks in the US and few links to their countries of origin. My long-tenured H1B coworkers would do no better upon moving to India or China than I would, save for language skills. But that's moot anyway. If the US decides to kick them out and they have to give up their current lives anyway, we'll move them to a third country with deterministic approval for skilled workers, like The Netherlands. Americans can flee to Canada or any number of other countries which open their doors to us, just as the draft-dodgers did when the "social fabric of the nation-state broke down." I agree it's weird to blow up citizenship as a concept. We should be talking about making citizenship actually possible for the people who are committed to it, not locked away behind quotas and waiting lists.
Faark 8y ago
> Where is this new belief that "Citizenship" is a concept that needs to be blown up coming from? My guess is this being a counter reaction to today's "build a wall and screw the others" mentality displayed in politics. I do understand people are tribal. I also care more about people closer to me. But nowadays our lives are highly interconnected and profit off each other, thus i need those to do well as well. The problem is overcoming the prisoners dilemma of short term tribal benefits vs long term global benefits. The focus on citizens over others seems a obstacle to that. Especially these days, where those "others" seem to be a great political scapegoat for all the other problems slowly breaking down the fabric of our society.