6 ms·

Thinking a lot about nationality and citizenship lately and I've come to realize just how absurd is that far and away the easiest way move citizenship in this w

by brm 15y ago

Thinking a lot about nationality and citizenship lately and I've come to realize just how absurd is that far and away the easiest way move citizenship in this world is still marriage. While a global citizen passport would be nice, simply making it easier for productive members of society to move around would make a great deal of difference. Imagine if all you had to do to move was to trade your American citizenship with a British person who wanted to move to the States. Wanna move back in 10 years? Trade your UK Passport to an American looking to move to Britain etc...

crazygringo 15y ago
I had this idea, but even better: make the passport trades temporary, on a monthly basis, and turn it into a financial market. US/UK switch? Probably basically free for both, if both are seen as equally desirable. But citizens from "less desirable" countries would pay ($30K/yr?) to have to the right to work in the US/UK. And, for example, US/UK doctors would receive money ($30K/yr?) to work in third-world countries. The rates would vary depending on each pair of countries and relative demand. It seems abhorrent at first to ask already-poorer third-world citizens to pay money, but the $30K/yr would presumably come out of salaries paid from the first world -- so people from third-world countries would only be able to work in the US if they were making excellent money, and therefore contributing greatly to the economy. No money is actually being "taken" from the third-world. And the $30K/yr payment to doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. living abroad would provide a fantastic transfer of skills from the first world to the third world, helping to counteract "brain drain". I'm not sure any governments would want to sign up for something like this, and it may feel rather questionable morally, but it could solve a lot of problems.
- jakeonthemove 15y ago
  Hey, you might be onto something here! But I doubt that's going to happen soon, if ever...
- _exec 15y ago
  Do you think this should be limited to passports, or extended to citizenship as well?
  - crazygringo 15y ago
    I'm basically just thinking about the right to reside and work. And it would be on a monthly or yearly basis, not a permanent thing. Citizenship is a permanent thing, so it's a different beast entirely. Of course, if citizenship were an option after n years of residing and working in a country (which is the case in many places), then one would expect the market prices to change considerably...
  - akkartik 15y ago
    http://startupboy.com/2005/11/29/securitize-citizenship http://startupboy.com/2005/11/29/securitize-citizenship
- true_religion 15y ago
  Using your example, at 30K/year you'd have alot of US/UK students offering to trade places with citizens of other countries. And if the poor of one country can be incentivized to switch with the rich of another country, wouldn't that just further stratify wealth?
  - crazygringo 15y ago
    Classical economic theory suggests that the switches would happen only when they were truly advantageous to both parties -- in this case, one would assume that the poor would gain in experience and knowledge, and the rich too. Otherwise neither of them would have made the trade in the first place. It's certainly debatable, but it would be my hope that it would lead to increases in opportunity for all parties. But these are exactly the kinds of moral concerns I alluded to...
    - true_religion 15y ago
      Ah I meant stratify in the geographical dimension. In that all the rich people will live in one nation, and all the poor people will live in another nation. Anyone who is poor in nation A, will trade places with an up and comer in nation B.
- johnchristopher 15y ago
  [quote]US/UK switch? Probably basically free for both, if both are > seen as equally desirable. But citizens from "less desirable" countries would pay ($30K/yr?) to have to the right to work in the US/UK. And, for example, US/UK doctors would receive money ($30K/yr?) to work in third-world countries. The rates would vary depending on each pair of countries and relative demand.[/quote] So for the same job one would receive a different salary based on his/her country of origins ? More specifically: people coming from poor countries would receive less money for the same job compared to "natives" of the welcoming country while people from richer countries would receive more money than "natives" of poorer countries they are working in ? It looks like a tax based on origins and (I am not american) seems to remember it is one of the founding myth of the american independance, am I wrong ?

by brm 15y ago

crazygringo 15y ago

I had this idea, but even better: make the passport trades temporary, on a monthly basis, and turn it into a financial market. US/UK switch? Probably basically free for both, if both are seen as equally desirable. But citizens from "less desirable" countries would pay ($30K/yr?) to have to the right to work in the US/UK. And, for example, US/UK doctors would receive money ($30K/yr?) to work in third-world countries. The rates would vary depending on each pair of countries and relative demand. It seems abhorrent at first to ask already-poorer third-world citizens to pay money, but the $30K/yr would presumably come out of salaries paid from the first world -- so people from third-world countries would only be able to work in the US if they were making excellent money, and therefore contributing greatly to the economy. No money is actually being "taken" from the third-world. And the $30K/yr payment to doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. living abroad would provide a fantastic transfer of skills from the first world to the third world, helping to counteract "brain drain". I'm not sure any governments would want to sign up for something like this, and it may feel rather questionable morally, but it could solve a lot of problems.

jakeonthemove 15y ago
Hey, you might be onto something here! But I doubt that's going to happen soon, if ever...
_exec 15y ago
Do you think this should be limited to passports, or extended to citizenship as well?
- crazygringo 15y ago
  I'm basically just thinking about the right to reside and work. And it would be on a monthly or yearly basis, not a permanent thing. Citizenship is a permanent thing, so it's a different beast entirely. Of course, if citizenship were an option after n years of residing and working in a country (which is the case in many places), then one would expect the market prices to change considerably...
- akkartik 15y ago
  http://startupboy.com/2005/11/29/securitize-citizenship http://startupboy.com/2005/11/29/securitize-citizenship
true_religion 15y ago
Using your example, at 30K/year you'd have alot of US/UK students offering to trade places with citizens of other countries. And if the poor of one country can be incentivized to switch with the rich of another country, wouldn't that just further stratify wealth?
- crazygringo 15y ago
  Classical economic theory suggests that the switches would happen only when they were truly advantageous to both parties -- in this case, one would assume that the poor would gain in experience and knowledge, and the rich too. Otherwise neither of them would have made the trade in the first place. It's certainly debatable, but it would be my hope that it would lead to increases in opportunity for all parties. But these are exactly the kinds of moral concerns I alluded to...
  - true_religion 15y ago
    Ah I meant stratify in the geographical dimension. In that all the rich people will live in one nation, and all the poor people will live in another nation. Anyone who is poor in nation A, will trade places with an up and comer in nation B.
johnchristopher 15y ago
[quote]US/UK switch? Probably basically free for both, if both are > seen as equally desirable. But citizens from "less desirable" countries would pay ($30K/yr?) to have to the right to work in the US/UK. And, for example, US/UK doctors would receive money ($30K/yr?) to work in third-world countries. The rates would vary depending on each pair of countries and relative demand.[/quote] So for the same job one would receive a different salary based on his/her country of origins ? More specifically: people coming from poor countries would receive less money for the same job compared to "natives" of the welcoming country while people from richer countries would receive more money than "natives" of poorer countries they are working in ? It looks like a tax based on origins and (I am not american) seems to remember it is one of the founding myth of the american independance, am I wrong ?