# losing the right to live in your own society



## xarruc

There has been a lot of discussion recently regarding the rights and responsabilities of society, of punishment and prostitutes and how society should deal with them. And that got me thinking.

We all know that there are high numbers of illegal immigrants living in Europe and the USA. we know they are often treated badly because they are denied "justice" normally available to citizens (employment rights etc.) or are scared to get police protection for fear of deportation.

By and large we aren't protesting this situation which consequently must mean that we think it is OK to have people living in our society without our oh-so-important rights.

There are lots of bad people in this world. Then there are those who dont pull their weight and others with nothing but contempt for mainstream society.

Given we seem to find a two tier society acceptable, and that an illegal can gain access to the upper tier and get a permit to become part of the society they already were and that nationality and place of birth seem to be becoming less important to us as we migrate and reduce barriers to movement between countries,.. *could we ever have a system develop where you are not born with full societal rights, or that you could lose those rights for antisocial behaviour?
*
Could we have an opt-out / opt-in society? like a members-only club?


----------



## danielfranco

Reminds me of some sci-fi plots, especially the one in "Starship Troopers", where the only way to guarantee citizenship in a world government is to serve in the military for a two-year tour. Otherwise, without full citizenship, one can't vote, can't have babies, can't go into politics, can't do squat. But rich people seem to shun citizenship and especially military service ("people get killed there", they argue melodramatically).

So, yeah, I guess a society like that could very well develop in a more totalitarian scheme. 
I imagine it'd be difficult to have a democratic, automatic full-citizenship kind of government in a planetary government. We'll see, I guess.
Beam me up, Scott my man...


----------



## maxiogee

xarruc said:


> *could we ever have a system develop where you are not born with full societal rights, or that you could lose those rights for antisocial behaviour?*


 
Alas, I'm sad to report that we in Ireland have already arrived there.
Until recently being born on the island of Ireland (and not just within the confines of that section which is the Republic of Ireland) was enough to entitle the baby to Irish citizenship.
Recent legislation, following a referendum, has changed things so that one of one's parents must have been resident in Ireland for a specified period of time in advance pf the birth.

I find this deeply saddening.


----------



## Fernando

If I am right, xarruc is saying the possibility to remove one's nationality to convert him in an inmigrant in his own country.

As far as I know, this is not possible in Spain (Constitution) nor in any big country (or at least it is very weird).

You can not get rid of your scum simply declaring they are not your nationals and putting them in the border. Apart from other motivations (Human Rights Declaration) the other countries are not suppossed to take charge of them.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

maxiogee said:


> Alas, I'm sad to report that we in Ireland have already arrived there.
> Until recently being born on the island of Ireland (and not just within the confines of that section which is the Republic of Ireland) was enough to entitle the baby to Irish citizenship.
> Recent legislation, following a referendum, has changed things so that one of one's parents must have been resident in Ireland for a specified period of time in advance pf the birth.
> 
> I find this deeply saddening.



Why? It stops people who use their children as leverages for them to remain in the country.

If I was born in France should I automatically be entitled to French citizenship?

Simply being born somewhere shouldn't automatically make you a citizen of that place IMO.


----------



## xarruc

To clarify my question, it is about whether you can imagine a world developing where, just as now you dont get a full pension if you never worked, being born does not give you an unconditional right to live in "society" - with restricted rights and limited access to the privilidges of society (education, health care, street cleaning, to vote etc.) - and also if such "rights" or benefits could be curtailed as a punishment, or if people could opt out of society - where they dont recieve the benefits yet dont carry the responsiblilty either.

Although it seems rather dark and melodramatic, such a thing was, I am sure, common in the past when townships were more a law unto themselves. 

It is actually an extension to the idea of people opting in or out of society. If the government says that health for all is provided by taxes, and you give some the right to take out private health insurance in return for an equivalant tax break, it could be argued that only those who pay tax should recieve the health care. In which case you are well on your way to the science-fictionesque tiered society.


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Simply being born somewhere shouldn't automatically make you a citizen of that place IMO.


What then should be the defining requirement for Irish (or any other)citizenship?





Pedro y La Torre said:


> If I was born in France should I automatically be entitled to French citizenship?


Why shouldn't you?





Pedro y La Torre said:


> Why? It stops people who use their children as leverages for them to remain in the country.


Ah go on outa that. How many people did we discommode by that rule? There were probably less than a handful.


----------



## xarruc

> could we ever have a system develop where you are not born with full societal rights, or that you could lose those rights for antisocial behaviour?





> I find this deeply saddening.





> Why?



We know that the illegal immigrants are living here permanently. That very fact shows that what I am saying about the apparent acceptability of a class of underdogs with no chance of bettering themselves.

If these "underdogs" breed (which of course thery do) and a country fails to acknowledge the offspring as full citizens then a very wrong and dangerous situation can arise, where someone who has never made a decsion to migrate finds themselve without a country, with no rights, no where to go... If we break the precedent that "we are all born equal" then we are surely turning our backs on hundreds of years of hard-won rights from the days when we were born serfs to be owned by the gentry.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

maxiogee said:


> What then should be the defining requirement for Irish (or any other)citizenship?



A realistic tie to the country. For instance if one's parents are Irish citizens or have been here for a sufficent number of years then yes you should be entitled to citizenship. But just being born somewhere shouldn't entitle you to it.

What sort of a situation would that lead to?

I saw on the news the other day that a woman who gave birth on an American plane in U.S. airspace was claiming citizenship for her kid presumably so she, the child and her husband could go to the U.S. and live there. Why should she be allowed to do this, simply because her child was accidentally born in another country?



maxiogee said:


> Why shouldn't you?



In this context, I have no ties to France, have never lived there and besides the accident of me being born there have no right to claim the benefits that accrue with gaining French citizenship.




maxiogee said:


> Ah go on outa that. How many people did we discommode by that rule? There were probably less than a handful.



I've no idea how many were. The idea however was correct. You cannot have a situation whereby you have people simply coming to a country, having a baby and then claiming a right to stay there.


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I saw on the news the other day that a woman who gave birth on an American plane in U.S. airspace was claiming citizenship for here kid presumably so she, the child and her husband could go to the U.S. and live there. Why should she be allowed to do this, simply because her child was accidentally born in another country?



Tosh. Just because a child is a citizen of somewhere doesn't entitle their parents to move in there also - why should it?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

maxiogee said:


> Tosh. Just because a child is a citizen of somewhere doesn't entitle their parents to move in there also - why should it?



I don't know whether it does or not as I'm not an expert on U.S. law. However that's how the media reported it. Now they may very well may be skewing the facts but the essence of my point remains the same. The situation has to be regulated, simply being born somewhere should not automatically you a right to that place's citizenship.


----------



## xarruc

> You cannot have a situation whereby you have people simply coming to a country, having a baby and then claiming a right to stay there.



I think that you cant *not *do that. Contolling migration has to be done at the border and not in a witch hunt for those without papers.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

xarruc said:


> I think that you cant *not *do that. Contolling migration has to be done at the border and not in a witch hunt for those without papers.



I agree.


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro y La Torre said:


> You cannot have a situation whereby you have people simply coming to a country, having a baby and then claiming a right to stay there.





xarruc said:


> Pedro y La Torre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot have a situation whereby you have people simply coming to a country, having a baby and then claiming a right to stay there.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you cant *not *do that. Contolling migration has to be done at the border and not in a witch hunt for those without papers.
Click to expand...




Pedro y La Torre said:


> I agree.



With what? It seems to me that xarruc is disagreeing with you.

=====


What are you going to do…
- turn away any expectant mothers coming in on a tourist visa?
- have a pregnancy test for all other women arriving at the airports?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

maxiogee said:


> With what? It seems to me that xarruc is disagreeing with you.



I don't think so. He says he dosen't want witch hunts, neither do I.




maxiogee said:


> What are you going to do…
> - turn away any expectant mothers coming in on a tourist visa?
> - have a pregnancy test for all other women arriving at the airports?



Absolutely not. Just make sure that all children who are granted citizenship have a proper entitlement to it. I don't see how that could be construed as unreasonable. After all, it is the law throughout most of the European Union.


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro y La Torre said:


> I don't see how that could be construed as unreasonable. After all, it is the law throughout most of the European Union.



You think that this is a sign of the reasonableness of a law?

That is an anti-immigrant ruling drawn up by bureaucrats who see the hungry and impoverished of the countries of Eastern Europe, most of Africa and much of Asia eying the place with a view to seeking a better life for themselves. 
Bureaucrats who know that the future is one of a looming immigrant crisis as more and more of Africa experiences drought and famine and as the climate, political and economic changes impact seriously on third world countries with little infrastructure.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

maxiogee said:


> That is an anti-immigrant ruling drawn up by bureaucrats who see the hungry and impoverished of the countries of Eastern Europe, most of Africa and much of Asia eying the place with a view to seeking a better life for themselves.
> Bureaucrats who know that the future is one of a looming immigrant crisis as more and more of Africa experiences drought and famine and as the climate, political and economic changes impact seriously on third world countries with little infrastructure.



Perhaps. But in any case, I believe that's another day's work. I'm all for immigration and intergration. If it were down to me, I'd be happy to let all who want a chance to live here do so. That dosen't detract from the fact though, that I cannot see why simply being born somewhere entitles you to that country's citizenship.

Two Irish parents are working in Spain. They have a child there. Is that child automatically entitled to citizenship? Of course not, why would they be. Now, if the parents make a desicion to settle there permanently or whatever,  then of course the situation would change and the child would and should gain citizenship of the country. But you fail to convince me as to why simply being born somewhere automatically entitles you to citizenship of that place.


----------



## winklepicker

xarruc said:


> could we ever have a system develop where you are not born with full societal rights, or that you could lose those rights for antisocial behaviour?


 
We slightly have this at present: in the UK you cannot vote if you are in prison. However, a European Court of Human Rights decision means we may have to change this - see BBC news story.

I think most Brits think this is bonkers, and feel that if you break society's rules then you should not have a say in how that society is run.

What do others think?


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro y La Torre said:


> But you fail to convince me as to why simply being born somewhere automatically entitles you to citizenship of that place.


 
It hinges on my understanding of the meaning of the word 'native'.



			
				WordReference Dictionary said:
			
		

> *native* *A*_noun_
> *1 **native*,
> _a person who was born in a particular place; an indigenous person _
> 
> *B*_adjective_
> *1 **native*
> _belonging to one by birth; "my native land"; "one's native language" _
> *2 **native*
> _being such by origin; "the native North American sugar maple"; "many native artists studied abroad" _
> *3 **native*,
> _being or composed of people inhabiting a region from the beginning; "native Americans"; "the aboriginal peoples of Australia" _
> *4 **native*
> _normally existing at birth; "mankind's connatural sense of the good" _
> *5 **native*
> _as found in nature in the elemental form; "native copper" _


 
I equate being a native with being entitled to citizenship.


----------



## Fernando

Currently, many African women are coming to Spain in pateras (small boats). They deliberately get pregnant because they have heard that their children would become Spaniards if they give birth in Spanish soil. I can not see why those children should have more or less rights to be Spaniards that an African born in, say, Niger.

The policy of giving privileges for being born in the country (ius solis) without any other connection would encourage more and more women to travel while pregnant.

Afterwards, the reunificiation rights (quite reasonably) would entitle the close family to claim the nationality of the child (or, at least, legal residence).


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

maxiogee said:


> It hinges on my understanding of the meaning of the word 'native'.
> 
> 
> 
> I equate being a native with being entitled to citizenship.



Being born somewhere automatically makes you a native of that place? I don't think so, whatever the dictionary may say. One of my close friends was born to an Iranian father and an Irish mother in London and then came to Ireland. Is he thus a native Englishman in your view!?


----------



## xarruc

Are you saying second-generation immigrant families are not native to the country they have been brought up in and that they may have never left?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

xarruc said:


> Are you saying second-generation immigrant families are not native to the country they have been brought up in and that they may have never left?



No, of course not. Have you read what I've said?

I'll give you an example if it helps. Jimmy is born in Argentina to Spanish parents. At age 2 Jimmy moves to Mexico and lives there for the rest of his life. Now, after living there all his life (excluding the first two years) why is Jimmy not to be considered a native Mexican? Because he was born in Argentina? Gimme a break.

Thus you cannot judge citizenship or "nativeness" on birth place alone, other factors must be taken into account.


----------



## xarruc

How long does the parent have to be in the country for the kid to be native? A week?, a year? Do they have to speak the official language(s) to a certain level? Does the kid have to stick around for a certain time?

If you're talking about an individual's subjective feelings of belonging to a country or nation than that is very different to a legal definition required for defining their rights and responibilities.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

xarruc said:


> How long does the parent have to be in the country for the kid to be native? A week?, a year? Do they have to speak the official language(s) to a certain level? Does the kid have to stick around for a certain time?
> 
> If you're talking about an individual's subjective feelings of belonging to a country or nation than that is very different to a legal definition required for defining their rights and responibilities.



Put it like this, if I've been living in a place for most of my life then I'm a native of that place. If I've just come somewhere and been born there or whatever, then I am not a native of that place.

Now, the law differs in many localities but I think most agree that birthplace alone cannot define you as a native.


----------



## maxiogee

Pedro y La Torre said:


> Is he thus a native Englishman in your view!?





Pedro y La Torre said:


> Gimme a break.



Okay, bye.


----------



## geve

xarruc said:


> *could we ever have a system develop where you are not born with full societal rights, or that you could lose those rights for antisocial behaviour?*


Maybe I'm completely missing the point here, but... haven't we had such systems before? Doesn't it still exist in some societies?
The nazis, colonization, apartheid, slavery, caste systems...? 



xarruc said:


> It is actually an extension to the idea of people opting in or out of society. If the government says that health for all is provided by taxes, and you give some the right to take out private health insurance in return for an equivalant tax break, it could be argued that only those who pay tax should recieve the health care. In which case you are well on your way to the science-fictionesque tiered society.


I have just discovered that I didn't have to pay taxes for the _Sécurité Sociale_ anymore! It was decided in 1992 by the EU, and is effective in France in 2001 (but strangely the _Sécu_ doesn't seem to agree with it). Not science-fiction then... (an article in French)


----------

