The Meaning of Citizenship

Published by

Clarissa

October 25, 2015

Since the topic of ISIS proved so popular, here is my explanation of why it matters to people so much.

At this particular moment in time it is extremely inconvenient for everybody to remember that the compact between a citizen and a nation-state is conditional. Neither the nation-state nor the citizens want to be reminded of their obligations to each other. Yet each party is convinced that the other will absolutely keep up its end of the bargain.

The reason why people get so passionate about the need to preserve the citizenship of these ISIS runners doesn’t have much to do with ISIS. It has to do with their need to know that “their” nation-state will for certain take care of them, no matter what. Even though they are no longer interested in doing anything whatsoever for it.

But it won’t. “Our” nation-state has already revoked our symbolic citizenship right after we symbolically repudiated it.

Back in graduate school, the especially pompous among us would say things like “I travel with a British passport” instead of “I’m British.” Those same people were exceptionally angry about the disappearance of welfare programs in the countries which, during the moments of indignance, would magically transform into “my country.” But a nation-state is not a consumer product that can be discarded whenever it’s convenient. And no amount of invocations will bring it back now that we have all chosen to kick it aside.

Rate this:

14 responses to “The Meaning of Citizenship”

Stringer Bell

October 25, 2015

I could manufacture an explanation along those lines arguing for the other side:

The reason why some people are so passionate about revoking the citizenship for criminals is because they’re heavily invested in the idea of their nation state, their boundaries, their flag. They believe only virtuous people should get the benefit of being citizens of their exalted country, which of course is the ultimate honor anyone get ever hope to achieve.

Which is why they get traumatized at the thought of their fellow citizens committing treasonous crimes against the state, and want to snatch away that prize of citizenship away from them. No death. No jail. But a revoked passport. that is the ultimate punishment for them.

How can someone claim to be ideologically post-nation-state and yet care so passionately about who gets to be called a citizen and who doesn’t?

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  October 25, 2015
  
  Yes, of course, I am interested in this topic because I believe that the erosion of the nation-state is tragic and needs to be at least slowed down a little. I’ve been talking about this on the blog obsessively.
  
  I don’t know what “ideologically post-nation state means.” We are all living in a post-nation state era. This is not something anybody here will be able to avoid. All that I can hope for right now is that it doesn’t collapse quite as fast and allows us collectively to come up with ways to make the change less painful. The first step would be to recognize that it’s happening, that it’s a massive transformation, and what it will mean for all of us. And that’s what I’m trying to do here.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Dreidel

October 25, 2015

“‘Our’ nation-state has already revoked our symbolic citizenship right after we symbolically repudiated it.”

If a Canadian passport is the only one currently held by N and you, then “your” nation-state in now Canada and ONLY Canada, regardless of where you came from and where you are now living.

That’s how international law deals with passports.

The U.S. and Canada allow dual citizenship, so if you thought it might be to your advantage, you could also get a U.S. passport without surrendering your Canadian one. Then you would be full naturalized citizens in both nation-states.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  October 25, 2015
  
  Alas, my husband is the citizen of Russia, hence the trip to Washington. The Russian bureaucracy is a formidable thing, and not in a good way.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Dreidel
    
    October 25, 2015
    
    Russia currently allows dual citizenship, so N could obtain a U.S. passport without surrendering his Russian one — I’m not advocating this, just pointing out the possibility. (I realize that Russian law is, to put it mildly, subject to change!)
    
    With dual citizenship, he would be legally treated just like an American while in the U.S., and just like a Russian while in Russia.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Clarissa
      
      October 25, 2015
      
      He will be able to apply for the US citizenship in about 3 years. He’d be happy to ditch the Russian passport for good but he has some expensive property back in Russia and he’s still hoping to wrestle it away from there.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
2. Clarissa
  
  October 25, 2015
  
  And by “our” I meant human beings I’m general.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
Dreidel

October 25, 2015

Apparently Ukraine is now making an exception to its “no dual citizenship” rule for people unfortunate enough to be residents of Crimea. Russia, of course, is issuing Russian passports to Crimean residents, but not requiring non-government officials to give up their Ukrainian passports. Ukraine clearly isn’t going to strip the forced “Russians” of their Ukrainian citizenship.

If residents of Crimea travel into non-occupied Ukraine, the Ukrainian government will still issue the Crimean residents Ukrainian passports.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  October 25, 2015
  
  And Ukraine has actually started giving back their passports to the former citizens who had emigrated to friendly countries. My parents actually got their passports back after more than a decade of not being citizens.
  
  The concept of citizenship is a lot more pliable than most people think.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. lamestllama
    
    October 26, 2015
    
    “The concept of citizenship is a lot more pliable than most people think”
    
    You only have to look at the story of Australian citizen David Hicks to realize support from a citizens own government is not unconditional.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
valter07

October 26, 2015

—“…. It has to do with their need to know that “their” nation-state will for certain take care of them, no matter what. ”

Not necessarily true. I do not mind explicit written contracts about obligations of a citizen towards a nation-state and of the nation-state towards the citizen. I do not mind the excommunication, so to speak, in general, if the rules are clear. What I oppose are two things:
a) creating several different classes of citizens, specifically where a citizen by birth (which obviously is not an achievement of the said citizen, or even a result of an act of his/her free choice) has more rights than a naturalized citizen and
b) tweaking this explicit contract too frequently, based on whatever scares people the most at the moment or what politicians could use for their immediate gains.

LikeLike

Reply
el

October 26, 2015

PM considers canceling residency of 80,000 East Jerusalem Palestinians
Netanyahu raises possibility in cabinet meeting of canceling residency status of East Jerusalem Palestinians who live on other side of the separation barrier sparking criticism from ministers.
]…[
“That is a far-reaching decision which requires a referendum, because it would involve giving up territory,” Katz remarked in response to Netanyahu.

Other lawmakers taking part in the discussion said that the matter affected residents with blue identity cards and that they could not simply be cut off on a whim.

It was subsequently agreed that a special session would be convened to discuss the fate of the neighborhoods beyond the wall.

“Netanyahu spoke about a situation which he seems not to fully understand,” a minister said after the cabinet meeting. “We are talking about an unequivocal division of Jerusalem.”
]…[
Jerusalem Police erected a concrete wall along a street between the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Armon Hanatziv and Jabal Mukaber in the east of the city last week. The move was billed as an attempt to put a stop to frequent stone-throwing and throwing of Molotov cocktails at homes in the area.

At the time, the Jerusalem municipality clarified that the wall was a temporary measure aimed at reducing injuries and damage to property in stone-throwing incidents.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4716274,00.html

LikeLike

Reply
1. Dreidel
  
  October 27, 2015
  
  Since Israel conquered East Jerusalem in 1967, Palestinians living there have been issued blue “residency status ID cards” rather than being allowed to get a “Palestinian Authority Passport” issued by the PA to Palestinians in the other “disputed territories.”
  
  This is because Israel doesn’t consider East Jerusalem “in dispute.” It considers the Eastern half of the holy city to be an annexed, permanent part of the State of Israel. But until the rest of the world accepts that annexation to be legitimate, Israel isn’t going to grant the Palestinians living in that special zone the benefits of Israeli citizenship, nor will it allow them to be issued PA passports issued by an external authority (which would bring into question Israeli claims of ownership).
  
  So Netanyahu’s bluff to cancel the residency status of Palestinians in East Jerusalem would effectively signal that Israel is washing its hands of the combative East Jerusalem area, giving up control of that area as a “no man’s land.” Israel would for practical purposes be surrendering East Jerusalem to the mercies of PA control.
  
  Surely, there’s no way Netanyahu will be foolish enough to do that, once he’s thought through the consequences.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Clarissa
    
    October 27, 2015
    
    I agree that taking away the residency of these Palestinians is a bizarre idea. It seems to me that Bibi is losing his grip on reality. It was tenuous in his best times, and now it is slipping away altogether.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply