3 ms·

> Where someone lives is the biggest investment they can make. It cannot be collected by rich people, and even poor people invest where they spend their time A

> Where someone lives is the biggest investment they can make. It cannot be collected by rich people, and even poor people invest where they spend their time All of these arguments apply to citizenship too, even more strongly. I've lived the majority of a year on three different continents, but have never changed my citizenship. It's also not accurate to say that the rich are less able to take advantage of this: the fact that I was able to try these things out is precisely because I'm rich. I don't think the newcomer/old-timer distinction mentioned upthread is especially useful, for the reasons you already outlined. But formal citizenship maps almost precisely to being invested in a place: it's a commitment that you identify with this society and its future, (mostly) to the exclusion of any other society.

edmundsauto 5y ago
I agree, except citizenship has significant hurdles to immigrants. And lots of people take theirs for granted. People who immigrate and become citizens, yes - they are invested. I don't think people who are natural citizens are as invested (except by default). And I definitely don't think people who are non-citizens are not invested -- they aren't allowed to "invest" in the same way. For local residency, it's a little different since it's relatively easy to switch residency (at least here in the US).
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > I agree, except citizenship has significant hurdles to immigrants. Agreed, this is a significant mitigating factor, which might make the policy make sense in any given situation.