Nation-state Test

Published by

Clarissa

November 16, 2015

We have talked a lot about the erosion of the nation-state on this blog, so it’s time for a little test. (What can I say, I’m on sabbatical, I mildly miss teaching.)

Look at the following statement by Senator Jeff Sessions. Is Sessions speaking from the position of

A. Wanting to preserve the nation-state
B. Wanting to destroy the nation-state?

“It is not sound policy to encourage millions to permanently abandon their homes. We have resettled 1.5 million migrants from Muslim nations in the United States since 9/11, and it clearly has not contributed to the stabilization of unstable regions.”

Rate this:

9 responses to “Nation-state Test”

cliff arroyo

November 17, 2015

Trick question! He’s already speaking from a Post Nation-State sensibility.

There’s no mention of all about US citizens, they’re irrelevant. It’s all about grand international designs in which there are players (him, others) and pawns (aka “people”).

In the Nation State model (at its best) the government is supposed to look out after the interests of citizens first, legal residents next, allies next and so on. In the non-Nation State model governments interact with other international actors and there’s no prioritization of citizen interest over that of random foreigners.

The post nation state is Intersectionality elevated to international relations.

LikeLike

Reply
Jones

November 17, 2015

“… permanently abandon their homes …”

“… clearly has not contributed to the stabilization of unstable regions …”

It sounds to me that this American politician only wants the arrival of “tired, huddled masses yearning to be free” if the migration patterns contribute favourably in a political sense, especially in terms of political stability.

I don’t hear a “nation state” implication with this at all.

It sounds more reminiscent to me of the kind of rhetoric you’d hear from George Kennan back during the bad old days of “containment theory”, with a supporting role from the “spheres of influence” argument which shows up in phrases such as “unstable regions” …

Diplomacy has more to do with why more specifics weren’t mentioned.

This politician (sensibly) doesn’t know for sure who his global allies are.

BTW, I was surprised to hear Marine le Pen on NPR’s “All Things Considered” on Monday evening during the Pacific US broadcast — I didn’t think having a guest such as her would normally be their style …

LikeLike

Reply
el

November 17, 2015

I choose “A” since a nation state model needs stable, relatively fixed in place populations. From nation state model’s point of view (and from my own), the solution would be creating real nation states instead of Syria so that different groups would be segregated by nationality / religion. A Kurdish state, for instance. The situation of huge groups which don’t see each other as one people but live in one state is hardly ideal. See Syria, Israel, situation in Europe in the past.

Also, again from the position of being pro-nation state: majority of refugees are young men of military age, right? Why should EU accept them, instead of them joining the army to fight for their country (on one of sides)? The position of “I don’t want to make matters right in my own nation state, thus you must let me in or you are EVIL” is not one I can honestly support.

LikeLike

Reply
1. Clarissa
  
  November 17, 2015
  
  You and I chose not to make matters right in our own state either. 🙂
  
  Both responses are right. The quoted fellow wants to preserve the nation-state but it’s way too late and he’s trying to stretch the old nation-state rhetoric over a reality that doesn’t fit in with it.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. el
    
    November 17, 2015
    
    \ You and I chose not to make matters right in our own state either. 🙂
    
    I think you are wrong about me here. I have served in IDF and Israeli Jews (me including) don’t say that because of Middle East conflict EU must take us in.
    
    Many of those refugees aren’t even from Syria, btw.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. Clarissa
      
      November 17, 2015
      
      You weren’t born in Israel, though. Like me, you left your country of origin. The difference is that I chose to leave my second state of residence, as well, and would have no qualms leaving the current one, too.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply
      1. xykademiqz
        
        November 17, 2015
        
        as well, and would have no qualms leaving the current one, too
        
        I feel the same. I kind of don’t care where I live, as long as it provides for what I want/need. My kids consider this place home, but I don’t really. It’s a home, but not the home. If it weren’t for the kids and my husband’s inert nature, I would move every 2-3 years. I think after you leave your home country as an adult, you never again find a similarly strong tether.
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        cliff arroyo
        
        November 17, 2015
        
        ” I think after you leave your home country as an adult, you never again find a similarly strong tether.”
        
        I hear ya, I still have an emotional attachment to the US but I really don’t want to live there ever again…
        If I have to leave where I am now my hierarchy is a) somewhere else in eastern europe (hungary?) b) somewhere in southern Europe (greece? bulgaria?) c) Spain.
        
        Oddly enough the richer countries of western europe are not even on my radar
        
        LikeLike
        
        Reply
        
        Clarissa
        
        November 17, 2015
        
        I’d love to go to a place with a cold climate, ideally subarctic. But that will never happen. N hates the cold.
        
        LikeLike