3 ms·

By your logic citizenship should then be granted to anyone deciding to go live in another country. Either that or country should prevent immigrants from moving

By your logic citizenship should then be granted to anyone deciding to go live in another country. Either that or country should prevent immigrants from moving there. There are people who, during their lifetime, live on different countries. So according to you someone who lives in four countries should change nationality three times? > I think it's even perfectly valid for nations to ban dual citizenship itself. Some do, some don't. In doubt I always vote for the option giving the individual more freedom: so even though I don't hold dual citizenship, I'm glad for those who do (except when it's US + another one and the US one proves to be a pain when living outside the US, as is the case in TFA). > What interest of a nation does it serve to cater to these people that have left for greener pastures? All I see is a free individual telling her tale. BTW you used the term "rootless cosmopolitan" to describe her: apparently that's some soviet-era antisemitic insult. The evil free individual, how dared she abandon the nation state?

PKop 5y ago
>By your logic citizenship should then be granted to anyone deciding to go live in another country. Either that or country should prevent immigrants from moving there. Of course it makes sense for countries to restrict who they want to come in, and no I don't think my logic dictates that citizenship should be granted to anyone just because they want to come in. I'm describing people who have "rejected" being a citizen of a country by virtue of leaving, living in another place and working for the economy and community outside of the nation who they were a citizen of before. I'm saying that being a citizen has value and so it should come with a cost, or it should be given up (or taken away). And that this shouldn't be very controversial. Certainly if you left an organization and worked for someone else you wouldn't be considered part of the old company? Or if you were on a sports team and left to another, same thing. It is up to each organization to determine the standards by which they assess granting membership.... leaving the org is certainly an legitimate criteria for revoking it. >The evil free individual, how dared she abandon the nation state? In and of itself I don't think it's that big of a deal, what I'm saying is, from the perspective of the home nation and its people... the citizens who didn't leave, why would it make any sense for them to cater to the people that left? To worry about their every whim and desire? They left. A nation and its people are those who are there and working to contribute to it and make it stronger. This is such common sense I don't understand the mindset who would think otherwise. The crux of the argument here comes down to this: OF COURSE from the perspective of individuals moving all over the world, they want absolute freedom, to do whatever they want, to go wherever they want, to have all the rights and priviliges of all the places they can possibly get with no costs. But this has nothing to do with what is best and desirable for a nation itself. What is best for the nation as a whole, including the people that actually live there, doesn't always match up with what people roaming all over the world want. And so the interests of people actually living in a place are no less valid nor do they matter less (I think they matter more, actually) than the interests of people that don't live in a place.

PKop 5y ago

>By your logic citizenship should then be granted to anyone deciding to go live in another country. Either that or country should prevent immigrants from moving there. Of course it makes sense for countries to restrict who they want to come in, and no I don't think my logic dictates that citizenship should be granted to anyone just because they want to come in. I'm describing people who have "rejected" being a citizen of a country by virtue of leaving, living in another place and working for the economy and community outside of the nation who they were a citizen of before. I'm saying that being a citizen has value and so it should come with a cost, or it should be given up (or taken away). And that this shouldn't be very controversial. Certainly if you left an organization and worked for someone else you wouldn't be considered part of the old company? Or if you were on a sports team and left to another, same thing. It is up to each organization to determine the standards by which they assess granting membership.... leaving the org is certainly an legitimate criteria for revoking it. >The evil free individual, how dared she abandon the nation state? In and of itself I don't think it's that big of a deal, what I'm saying is, from the perspective of the home nation and its people... the citizens who didn't leave, why would it make any sense for them to cater to the people that left? To worry about their every whim and desire? They left. A nation and its people are those who are there and working to contribute to it and make it stronger. This is such common sense I don't understand the mindset who would think otherwise. The crux of the argument here comes down to this: OF COURSE from the perspective of individuals moving all over the world, they want absolute freedom, to do whatever they want, to go wherever they want, to have all the rights and priviliges of all the places they can possibly get with no costs. But this has nothing to do with what is best and desirable for a nation itself. What is best for the nation as a whole, including the people that actually live there, doesn't always match up with what people roaming all over the world want. And so the interests of people actually living in a place are no less valid nor do they matter less (I think they matter more, actually) than the interests of people that don't live in a place.