3 ms·

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? Besid

by 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.

by baddox 8y ago

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.