Somehow I doubt that this was what Sklansky had in mind. Not because I think that highly of his moral standards, just because I think he is a simpleton who thought you could just do a straight swap of one person for another, or he just didn't think about it at all.

No, I don't think so either. To me it's just an interesting and often forgotten topic, and perhaps a warning about where some countries are headed.

As I am sure most posters here realized, I never meant the idea to be taken literally. Rather it was just a cute way of saying that the many Americans who are just barely skilled enough to keep their jobs are leaving something out when they say they fear immigrants will take those jobs because they will accept a lower salary. They also fear that there will be plenty who will take their jobs without a pay cut because they are better at it.

You certainly think very highly of most posters' opinion of you.

No one would object or be surprised if members of a club with private facilities disagreed with new members being allowed to come and access those facilities for free without even paying a membership entry fee, because everyone realizes it's not just about maintenance costs, you should pay for what has been built by others.

But when the same is discussed at a national level, where citizens are the members and everything that makes a country desirable has been built by them or their ancestors, then suddenly it's some kind of moral mandate to allow access to all of that for free to newcomers lol

Great. What does this have to do with denaturalisation of citizens?

That clubs can kick out bad members, especially recent entrants, especially if other members don't vouch for them (and become responsible for their actions), especially if those members are also members of other clubs and can go there.

In general there is no moral obligation to keep being associated with people, and tools should exist to end associations

We're not talking about recent entrants, we're talking about citizens, as I said. Recent entrants can't be citizens, so we're primarily talking about people born there.

Ok, so in this analogy, a country is like a golf club or a casino in that it can pick and choose who it lets stay within its borders. Running with that, where are we kicking out the "bad" members to? Shall we send them to a particularly cold and uninhabitable part of the country, to mine heavy metals perhaps? That seems like a solid plan, what do you think?

I think the most generous interpretation of your post is that you either didn't read the conversation leading up to it, or you don't know what "denaturalisation" means.

For me recent means "less than 100 years", I am European.

Recent means not having a clear bloodline of several generations of ancestors (preferably a majority of them) who were part of the club.

Now for citizens whose bloodlines have been part of the fabric of society (the club) for 100+ years, exile should be very rare and require a high threshold of evil committed and so on.

But I mean once you are ostracized (and that is one of the first forms of democracy we have historical proof of, people voting with shells to decide whether to kick out a member from society, shell is ostrakon in Greek, hence ostracize), where you end up going is none of our business, we kick you out of the casino then if you have a place or not, we could care less.

The lives of non citizens cease to have any inherent values, their welfare stops being a concern of the nation.

Enslaving them as you proposed is a completly different affair that would violate basic constitutional provisions in many countries.

Now for the USA specifically iirc there are very clear SCOTUS decision about a constitutional impossibility of removing citizenship from people born there, so unless an amendment is passed, that's it.

While naturalized citizens can lose citizenship easily, it's just about congress passing laws determining when that can be the case and the executive enforcing them. Some such laws exist and courts have only discussed their application, the constitutionality of stripping naturalized citizens of citizenship afaik is not in question.

But the UK does strip citizenship from people born there regularly (220 case 2010 to 2022 according to this article), one such case got a lot of press coverage (UK born Bangladesh origin girl going to fight for Islamic terrorists out of the country)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-53428191

So as with any other topic about society rules, you have a constitution, then general laws, and you apply them, and there is nothing incompatible with liberal democracies about denaturalizing.

Italy has very few cases in which you can lose Italian citizenship (the ius sanguinis one, the Blood right), and they are linked to enlist in a foreign army, or fight as a guerrilla in foreign countries, or work for foreigner governments even with the Italian government explicitly telling you not to.

In France you can be stripped of your citizenship if you commit extremely serious crimes against the nation, including terrorism, or for action similars as what Italy sanctions in favour of other countries with the government telling you to stop

https://www.service-public.fr/partic...of%20terrorism

Oh good, the bloodline chat again. I'd tread carefully there, Dr. Mengele.

It's the basis of the law for citizenship in most countries in the world, the ius soli vs ius sanguinis distinction.

100 years of bloodline is the basis for citizenship for most countries? Source?

Having parents who are citizens is the basis of citizenship in most countries, while being born there isn't in many of them.

So when you say stuff like "we are talking citizens, people who are born there", while that is clearly true for the USA, it isn't for most countries.

The 100 years (4 generations) distinction is my personal preference, which Italy uses to give you citizenship (you just need one great grandfather or grandmother being Italian to be Italian if you want to)

By this system, no immigrant any of their descendants can ever become naturalised in these countries unless one of their parents is also a citizen (assuming the requirement is one parent, not both parents). Doesn't ring true to me, you sure that's how it works?

Also, assuming my understanding is correct, surely you don't like this system since it motivates miscegenation between the savages and the purebred natives, right?

Hm no you are confusing things. We are talking what the automatic, no question asked, no filter way to acquire citizenships are. In ius soli countries, it's about place of birth. In Ius sanguinis countries, it's about your parents citizenship. Losing this is usually hard (sometimes impossible).

Now the USA and other ius soli countries ALSO have ius sanguinis, sure.

Then there is naturalization, the act of acquiring citizenship not at birth but later in life. Every country has it's own rules about it, there is a wide range of rules worldwide. Filters are applied. Losing the citizenship acquired in this way is usually far easier, ie there usually are laws allowing you to be stripped of this with a lower threshold required vs being stripped of the citizenship acquired at birth (as mentioned in the USA the citizenship acquired at birth can't be lost legally in any way, while that acquired through naturalization can be removed any way congress sees fit).

But you were commenting de-naturalizing being about "people being born there".

You worked under the assumption it was some sort of moral crime incompatible with civilization to have ways to lose your birth citizenship. To be kicked away, to be exiled, to be considered so incompatible with society, as to be rejected by it in full.

I pointed out modern liberal democracies do that, albeit for rare cases. The USA doesn't, because the constitution doesn't allow for it.

Alright, I have a clearer understanding of what you were saying now, thanks.

In your example, the existing members have paid their 40 years of dues and now not only do they not have to pay dues anymore, they start to get money back. The club needs new members to start paying for these additional expenses.

ye a pay as you go club would be seen as an intergenerational ponzi scheme of epic proportion if it ever got as big as a nation oh wait

I see Luciom is having a normal one and advocating for contravening the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To be specific this is the problematic part (and I don't just mean the horrible incorrect idiom):

Depriving a citizen of nationality contravenes the UDHR if it would make a person stateless, so whether or not a person has a place to go is a very important consideration when revoking a person's nationality. The case of Shamima Begum that Luciom noted was such a big deal and attracted a lot of controversy because it wasn't clear whether or not she had Bangladeshi citizenship. If she didn't then the UK would not legally be permitted to remove her citizenship (and the decision is still probably going to be appealed with the ECHR).

I hope you will point out to other users that they violate the UDHR every time they propose or defend hate speech laws (no such exemption is listed in article 19), or in general anything but completly adherence to free speech absolutism, same as no exception is listed under article 15 (the one about nationality you imply means it's illegal to leave someone stateless).

Unless i mean "actually it's complicated" in regards with "does this violate the UDHR or not", only works for stuff other people say and not when i make a claim.

Well, it's an improvement on the argument I thought you were going to make, which is that the declaration of human rights applies only to humans.

The difference in my mind is that while there is no conflict with anything else in the UDHR when it comes to making a person stateless, whereas hate speech laws cover when article 19 rights begin to infringe upon other rights, e.g. article 18 in the case of hate speech laws relating to religion. I will admit that it's not straightforward but the UN itself supports me in this as this is the wording of the legal treaty that nations commit to:

You're right that some things are genuinely complicated when it comes to what and how things are protected by the UDHR and this is certainly one of them.

I don't believe that the right to not be stateless is complicated at all though and there is no justifiable argument to violate it within the framework of the UDHR. In practical terms, whether or not a person is actually being made stateless might be complicated, the right itself is not.

In general when you make a wishlist of rights that include positive rights, and you make a bunch of them absolute, "impossibilities" arise whre you have 2 theoretically absolute rights fighting over the same turf, and what happens in practice is whomever is in power decides, completly arbitrarily, which rights prevail and how much and how.

Which is exactly why more and more countries, and institutions, make lists of positive rights (things others are required to provide to you no matter what): that gives power to the people who call the shots, taking it away from the general population.

Lists of rights were invented at the beginning exclusively as a list of things the people with power can't do to those with less power. Negative rights. Protections against violence by those more capable and resourceful to be violent. Guarantees against aggression over certain thresholds, from the people whom we gave the keys of the world.

I reject the concept of positive rights in general, and a "right to citizenship" is one of them. I agree it's less problematic to square it up with other rights, than say the insane "right to health" can be, and that at the end we can somewhat survive with just "ok nevermind, if a person only has 1 citizenship he gets to keep it no matter what".

But the fact that it can be survived doesn't mean it's not problematic. It devalues the symbolism of citizenship, and all it accompanies.

It's a further abandonment of the concept of personal responsibility ("you get to keep this valuable membership of an exclusive club even if you spend your whole life trying to destroy it" is a very bad message imho).

So in practice, you are suggesting we either execute those made stateless or incarcerate them for life as personae non grata anywhere, correct?