NationStates Jolt Archive

In a previous thread, entitled "Stalin or Mao" (or something to that effect), I had an argument with a couple of different people about the holocaust. My main point was that, according to the National Socialist policies according to the time, the Jews were not citizens, and therefore the NAZIs had every right to expell them.

Naturally, such an ideal came under heavy fire. So, following that line of thought, here are the topics of discussion:

(Also, a disclaimer: this is not a thread specifically about the NAZIs. In fact, I'd prefer that the NAZIs were kept completely out of this discussion. This is a very general discussion.)

1) How is a citizen defined?

Is one a citizen soley because he lives or has lived in an area? If that is the case, then what's the point of classifying people as immigrants? Or why should it even have been bothered to have been added to the constitution that African Americans are citizens?

Is a citizen an intrinsic state or is it a title granted by a national authority? IE, is one a citizen because the State says so?

Other?

I tend to believe that a citizen is a legal definition, and therefore defined by the national legislative body. A citizen is one whom the State calls its own.


2) What are the rights of the state towards non citizens, and vice versa?

Does a State have the right to expel non citizens, presuming the State decides that the non-citizens' prescence is not in the best interests of the State and/or the people/nation whom the State represents?

Why or why not?

I should have put a poll. Damn. :(

In a previous thread, entitled "Stalin or Mao" (or something to that effect), I had an argument with a couple of different people about the holocaust. My main point was that, according to the National Socialist policies according to the time, the Jews were not citizens, and therefore the NAZIs had every right to expell them.

Naturally, such an ideal came under heavy fire. So, following that line of thought, here are the topics of discussion:

(Also, a disclaimer: this is not a thread specifically about the NAZIs. In fact, I'd prefer that the NAZIs were kept completely out of this discussion. This is a very general discussion.)

1) How is a citizen defined?

Well, I would have to say Citizenship is something that cannot be revoked just because a new political party comes to power. For instance, if the "Klan Party" won the elections, it would be wrong for them to declare all African Americans to no longer be citizens.

(edit) Let me clarify: A citizen is one of the people making up a nation. Generally, you are a citizen because A: Your parents were citizens, B: you were accepted as a citizen by your nation, or C: you were named a citizen when the nation was founded.

Is a citizen an intrinsic state or is it a title granted by a national authority? IE, is one a citizen because the State says so?
No, the United States exists because it's citizens say so.
Other?

I tend to believe that a citizen is a legal definition, and therefore defined by the national legislative body. A citizen is one whom the State calls its own.


2) What are the rights of the state towards non citizens, and vice versa?

Does a State have the right to expel non citizens, presuming the State decides that the non-citizens' prescence is not in the best interests of the State and/or the people/nation whom the State represents?

Why or why not?

Absolutely not. Under extreme circumstances, as a punishment for high crimes, I could see a good justification for Exile, but simply being able to declare someone a non-citizen is a power the state should never have. Also, this ability would create all kinds of loopholes, allowing horrible human rights abuses. Could you imagine the fallout if nations could simply declare the impoverished to no longer be citizens? suddenly, these people's welfare would no longer be the nations responsibility.

assuming your not actually a pro nazi in real life and there is a point in disscussing this sensibly with you, (not trying to insult, i just don't know enough of your post history to decide myself)

citizenship is, in my opinion a right granted by the government.

human rights should be everything a government should provide to its non-citizens and citizens alike.

yes a state can expel a non-citizen with just cause, i should not be able to revoke citizenship, in my opinion

Was it legally right? Sure, you can modify the law to make anything you want legal.

Was it morally right? Not by a long shot.

I should have put a poll. Damn. :(

Thread tools. And thus ends my participation in this thread.

Well, I would have to say Citizenship is something that cannot be revoked just because a new political party comes to power. For instance, if the "Klan Party" won the elections, it would be wrong for them to declare all African Americans to no longer be citizens. No, the United States exists because it's citizens say so.

Well, obviously, if there is a mere change in leadership under the same system, it is pretty absurd to think that citizenship could be affected. But that is not exactly what I am asking.

How is citizenship defined?

If it is defined legally according to a government system, then certainly, citizenship can cahnge presuming that the legal system itself changes. No?

In my humble opinion, citizens are intrinsic.
If you live in a certain country, you work and are contributing to country-X's economy and livelihood then you are, by all means, a citizen of that country regardless of where you came form.

Legislative citizenship is just a piece of document and label the gov't gives you.

In my humble opinion, citizens are intrinsic. If you live in a certain country, you work and are contributing to country-X's economy and livelihood then you are, by all means, a citizen of that country regardless of where you came form.

So all of the illegal aliens should be considered citizens?

So all of the illegal aliens should be considered citizens?

Yes.

The notion of a "citizen" is too subjective to lend itself to any mutually acceptable definition. I do fully appreciate, and, to an extent, echo the opinions of the OP in considering citizenship to be a form of legislative right, which can be both afforded and revoked. Indeed, if one refutes the "sacrosanctity" of self-determination, which is defied in most nations in regard to immigration in any case, a democratically elected government appears to have, logically, every right to revoke citizenship. Given that, nominally at any rate, a democratically elected government rules in accordance with the sentiments and best interests of the democratic majority, and is also equipped to determine both, it must thus be able to revoke the "citizenship" of those under its mandate.

Upon a different line, quite what would revoking citizenship entail? Within the modern epoch, the declaration of human rights ensures a certain standard of accomodation within any state, for any person, however, should the removal of citizenship entail deportation?

Surely the government gets its legitimacy from the populace.
This is definitively so in a democracy, less clear but still in a sense true in any
other form of government.

Given that it, is still the government that frames legislation and that
it is by legislation that your citizenship is determined a government
is always capable of declaring people non citizens.
If they used that capability to remove citizenship from people it would
be wrong.

I would suggest that if you are born and raised in any particular country then
you would have to be considered a citizen of that country unless the government
legislates unreasonably

Yes.

That's just crazy. If everyone can theoretically be a citizen anywhere, then why bother having autonomous states at all?

Saying Citizenship is intrinsic is the same as saying a nation is intrinsic, neither are, its a fallacy.

Also...and I know you didnt want this brought up...but if indeed the Jews in Germany were not Citizens then per the Letter of the Law the Germans did have every riht to expel said non-citizens where it was allowable by law.

That is nothing NAZI based that is a basic understanding of any nation state.

Nations are based around perceptions and imaginary lines....citizenship is equally vaporous, and can change with the breeze.

then why bother having autonomous states at all?

Indeed! :p

Saying Citizenship is intrinsic is the same as saying a nation is intrinsic, neither are, its a fallacy.

Also...and I know you didnt want this brought up...but if indeed the Jews in Germany were not Citizens then per the Letter of the Law the Germans did have every riht to expel said non-citizens where it was allowable by law.

That is nothing NAZI based that is a basic understanding of any nation state.

Nations are based around perceptions and imaginary lines....citizenship is equally vaporous, and can change with the breeze.

Right...and since Der Fuhrer's word was law, then surely, his actions were completely legitimate. No?

Upon a different line, quite what would revoking citizenship entail? Within the modern epoch, the declaration of human rights ensures a certain standard of accomodation within any state, for any person, however, should the removal of citizenship entail deportation?

That, I am fairly sure, doesn't apply to non UN nations.

Right...and since Der Fuhrer's word was law, then surely, his actions were completely legitimate. No?
Legitimate, NO. Legal, yes absolutely as they did not break overruling German Law, if there was no overruling law German then he couldnt he been breaking the law.

That hardly makes it Legitimate--dont even attempt to attach me to some half wit that would offer Legitimacy to the boorish simpltons of the German NAZI party.....and their quite sane and ruthless leaders.

I merely sated the fact that they were not breaking the law.

That, I am fairly sure, doesn't apply to non UN nations.

I assume so, however the majroity of the civilised world, to which this discussion is implicitly relevant, are members.

I merely sated the fact that they were not breaking the law.

Legitimate=within the bounds of the law.

No?

A government that revokes the citizenship of its citizens has lost all legitimacy. Legitimacy comes from the citizens. A government with no citizens has no legitimacy. Nor anyone to govern.

A government that revokes the citizenship of its citizens has lost all legitimacy. Legitimacy comes from the citizens. A government with no citizens has no legitimacy. Nor anyone to govern.

Right, but what if a state specifically revokes the citizenship of a specific portion of those living within the state, particularly a group that most of those living in the State don't believe should be citizens?

Or what if, rather than outright revoking citizenship, the definition of "citizen" is altered, so that someone who once was considered a citizen no longer meets that definition?

For example! As it is now, the US considers anyone born to a US parent, even outside of the country, a citizen. But what if the US changes it's laws to say that only those born within the country to US born citizens can be a citizen.

Clearly, that would greatly reduce the number of citizens, but it would nonetheless be legitimate, no?

Right, but what if a state specifically revokes the citizenship of a specific portion of those living within the state, particularly a group that most of those living in the State don't believe should be citizens?

Or what if, rather than outright revoking citizenship, the definition of "citizen" is altered, so that someone who once was considered a citizen no longer meets that definition?

For example! As it is now, the US considers anyone born to a US parent, even outside of the country, a citizen. But what if the US changes it's laws to say that only those born within the country to US born citizens can be a citizen.

Clearly, that would greatly reduce the number of citizens, but it would nonetheless be legitimate, no?

Sure it would be legitimate as long as the people supported it. Personally I don't think governments should have the right of revoking any citizens citizenships without a constitutional amendment and referendum.

Sure it would be legitimate as long as the people supported it. Personally I don't think governments should have the right of revoking any citizens citizenships without a constitutional amendment and referendum.

Obviously, that applies in a state with a constitution. But what about a dictatorship, fascist state, etc, but presuming that the masses nonetheless support it?

Despite that, revoking citizenship is not even something that should be considered legitimate or not. Governments should instead try to extend citizenship in a fair and legal manner to anyone who should have it.

Obviously, that applies in a state with a constitution. But what about a dictatorship, fascist state, etc, but presuming that the masses nonetheless support it?

Yeah it would be legitimate per sé. Lawful I guess, but honestly, a fascist state can make anything it wants 'lawful' or 'legitimate'. If they wanted to they could 'legitimately' enslave the whole country.

Legitimate=within the bounds of the law.

No?

By that definition, yes.
Assuming Hitler's word was Law.

Yeah it would be legitimate per sé. Lawful I guess, but honestly, a fascist state can make anything it wants 'lawful' or 'legitimate'. If they wanted to they could 'legitimately' enslave the whole country.

Then my argument was completely valid and sound. No?

Legally, your arguement was sound, if we operate strictly by the letter.

Then my argument was completely valid and sound. No?

Yeah, I guess so, in terms of a fascist state I suppose removing citizenship is a legitimate move, as is anything else within the bounds of the state.

But if your trying to find support for Hitler's genocidal tendencies through his 'legitimate' removal of citizenship from Jews your not going to get it from me.

If your not trying to find such support, then ignore the above statement.

Legally, your arguement was sound, if we operate strictly by the letter.

I love being right.