Citizenships's test

[Deleted]

In my country, but otherwise in every democratic nation, i've seen how citizens ignore their nation, their politic system, and social responsability. Many of them are only unculturated, ungrateful and too lazy to do something for their country or even their city, they regret healtcare, vaccination, and even basic rules for a good social system.
So this is my idea: not every child that is born in a country is automatically a citizen. The state ensures healtcare and education for every child until he becomes 18 years old, then he decide if he want to be part of that country, or he want to move away, somewhere else, but in that case he doesn't have full citizen's rihts. But, if he want to stay, he have to do a test, to certificate if he is adequate enough without creating problems to others, and he have full citizen's rights.

(p.s. sorry for my grammar, i'm not english mothertongue!)

[The Confederacy of Halimia]

I want to ask before presenting my view: What happens if they fail ALL the tests. For ALL the countries?

[Candlewhisper]

I'm the opposite to you here.

I think national citizenship should be phased out of our culture, with in its place a recognition of universal humanity. No nations, no borders, and all the rest.

I'm realist enough to know this isn't feasible in the world as it is today, but I worry about "us and them" mentality and the path that it takes people to, psychologically.

[The Confederacy of Halimia]

Candlewhisper, I'm on your side with that one, nations need to be slowly phased out. When countries split these days, it makes me grit my teeth. We need less, not more!

[Candlewhisper]

My worries likely stem from being someone who is non-White living in a fairly secular and tolerant country (the UK), but one with increasing nationalistic elements that are keen to push a Britain-first agenda, rejecting ideas of international aid, suggesting trade protectionism, and so on. While they tanked at the last general election they managed to shift the political landscape, moving the ruling Tory party more towards nationalistic rhetoric.

It sickens me when I hear people say "how can we spend money on international aid when our own economy is suffering?"

That basically, to me, smacks of people saying "us white British people count more than those brown people over there" and "its our money, why should we help them?"

And in the last year we've got the Syrian refugee crisis, and people fretting over the economic and cultural impact of letting refugees in when you have children drowning in the sea, and people so desperate to escape that they are leaving everything they know behind and risking their lives to move.

There are arguments against international aid, but I think there's a general shift in politics towards tribalism and insularity, and a move away from recognising common humanity and a shared world. Environmentalism, the rich-poor divide, global feminism, world capitalism: none of these things will make any positive progress until as a world we recognise we are one world.

And damn, now I sound all Michael Jackson. Bleugh.

[Zyga]

This brings up some interesting points about national selectivity, hmmm....
Two thoughts popped into my head right away. The first was: what about the mentally disabled? Or even just those with lower-than average education, etc? I, personally, think it is the responsibility of a nation to protect and care for all, even non-citizens (and especially those who cannot care for themselves).
My second thought was a bit less political- what about families? What about the individuals? Forging a path in the world at 18 is hard enough even when you have people supporting you, and you are in a comfortable environment, let alone in a new country (I speak as a foreign exchange student, it's f**king tough and that's with a lot of support). Would you need a visa to go "home" to visit? Wouldn't you experience a huge loss of identity and community?
I think, after a few generations of this program, you would likely have many expats become enemies of the state, many citizens abandoning for a country that could provide a secure cultural niche for their children, and many many people who feared being rejected from the homeland that they once loved.

[Hahiha / USSR]

Oct 12, 2015 4:50:18 GMT -5 Candlewhisper said:

I'm the opposite to you here.

I think national citizenship should be phased out of our culture, with in its place a recognition of universal humanity. No nations, no borders, and all the rest.

I'm realist enough to know this isn't feasible in the world as it is today, but I worry about "us and them" mentality and the path that it takes people to, psychologically.

The EU's Shenghen zone is pretty close to being this.

[Candlewhisper]

If only.

For one thing, its merely changed its notion of borders and identity to addressing humans as Europeans and non-Europeans, rather than humans. Look at the handling of the Syrian refugee crisis, and the way that essentially any non-European life in danger is treated as a matter of charitable aid rather than moral responsibility.

For another, nations within Europe still maintain very distinct senses of national loyalty, above and beyond their loyalty to the greater whole, as well as a great deal of antipathy to each other. Germany looks down on Greece for its financial irresponsibility, Greece blames Germany for not giving their economy a way out of the doldrums, and so on. Even within said nations, there's a tendency towards loyalty to local identities and cultures rather than a national whole: look at Catalunya in Spain, for example, a place where the locals will almost take offence if you call them Spanish.

However, it IS a step in the right direction, which is why its somewhat shameful that my own nation (the United Kingdom) is historically so Europhobic, and if anything the national mode is towards greater fragmentation of the UK into its constituent countries.

[Hahiha / USSR]

The fact that the Europeans are so nationalist make sense, we Americans have a lot of pride for what state we're from, it's practicially the same thing (except that the U.S. govt controls the cash flow between them and the states while the E.U. does no such thing).

[geckodorian]

I personally am oppose to some sort of test to gain citizenship. The role of governments at least in the modern world is to serve its people and to reject someone based on some arbitrary test seems wrong.

What happens if you cannot financially afford to leave, is the government going to pay for them leaving? Are you going to have to live in a country where you are a second class citizen without full rights?

Are people with disabilities and learning disabilities going to have the same test?

How are the tests going to be regulated so that they are fair for everyone?
The government would have to spend money to regulate and make sure that the tests are fair, otherwise it could led to people who would have gotten the citizenship but were denied by some biased person. Even then the government cant catch everyone.

This could end up being similar to the literacy test that used to be in America. Where people had to be given a literacy test and more often than not african americans were denied their rights, because of a racist person doing the test.

It seems dangers to deny anyones rights. I believe that nations should be completely open and anyone who moves to another country should have full rights as a citizen their if they so choose.

[Hahiha / USSR]

I'm fairly certain the literacy tests were put in place in the south by racists so blacks couldn't vote.

[Candlewhisper]

Nov 7, 2015 4:26:28 GMT -5 geckodorian said:

I personally am oppose to some sort of test to gain citizenship. The role of governments at least in the modern world is to serve its people and to reject someone based on some arbitrary test seems wrong.

What happens if you cannot financially afford to leave, is the government going to pay for them leaving? Are you going to have to live in a country where you are a second class citizen without full rights?

Are people with disabilities and learning disabilities going to have the same test?

How are the tests going to be regulated so that they are fair for everyone?
The government would have to spend money to regulate and make sure that the tests are fair, otherwise it could led to people who would have gotten the citizenship but were denied by some biased person. Even then the government cant catch everyone.

This could end up being similar to the literacy test that used to be in America. Where people had to be given a literacy test and more often than not african americans were denied their rights, because of a racist person doing the test.

It seems dangers to deny anyones rights. I believe that nations should be completely open and anyone who moves to another country should have full rights as a citizen their if they so choose.

Yes, I absolutely agree, especially the underlined bit. Govern and represent the people you have, not select the people you'd like to represent and govern.

[pazakistan]

I think that all immigrants as well as former cites end you moved to another countrie and got citizenship their out stayed their for over a year then moved back to the country they were born in should have to take a citizenship test. I also think that children should only get citizenship if their parents had citizenship when their child was born.

[pazakistan]

Also in order to keep your citizenship you should have to take a test every 5-10 years.

[Candlewhisper]

So, if you were to flub your 5-yrly test, say because you were going through a stressful divorce at the time, or because your kid had just been run over a week before, what would happen under your system? Would you be extradited?

Also, are we just talking immigrants here? Say you're a hard-working hospital nurse who has lived in the US as a citizen for 25 years, but you immigrated here when you were ten. How is it just that you need to prove your citizenship every five years, when a native-born 30 year old who has never worked a day in his life doesn't need to do this?

Also, what exactly are you asking on a citizenship test?

Are we talking a general knowledge quiz on elements of history and geography the government considers important? If so, who is to say that knowledge of national history and national geography are more important than, say, knowledge of NYC street layout for a cabbie, or knowledge of Texas state for a Texan?
Are we talking about tests of values and culture? If so, how do you stop a government creating a citizenship test that has conscious or subconscious political bias towards their own beliefs? How do you stop status quo bias creating a situation where it is assumed that our current values are the best ones? What if our current values aren't the best values we can have? For example, in the 1950s, homosexuality was illegal in a lot of countries. Should a values test of a 1950s nation test to see if an individual condemns homosexuality?
Are we talking about tests of patriotism? If so, why do we assume patriotism is a good thing? What happens when you get a bad government? Isn't it the duty of every citizen to challenge a bad government?