citizenship and statelessness

>>2348364
>can a country revoke a citizenship in the first place, does a country actually have that right?
Yes

>>2348364
>does a country actually have that right

Countries/governments don't have rights; people do

>>2348367
and if I could draw some kind of sensible thought from you, WHY does a country have that right?
if our governments are representative of the people, shouldn't it be a fundamental contradiction of the state excluded it's own citizens

it's a similar argument to the state taking voting rights away from prisoners, and this leading to an tyrannical/undemocratic institution

>>2348364
believe it or not (and this is hard for liberals) we don't live in an egalitarian society. We have hierarchy. This means someone above you on the hierarchy has the right to take away your citizenship.

>>2348400
See >>2348403

>>2348364
Citizenship comes with the understanding and tacit consent to the social contract between the citizen and the state.

If the state can prove you mean to break the contract or have actively done so, it should also have the ability to revoke your citizenship.

>>2348403
well that is a very strange assertion to make

is everyone included in this hierarchy of yours?

if you hold a might makes right kind of worldview, does this not mean a person could in fact declare themselves stateless to avoid prosecution?
like those sovereign citizen people, if they had the firepower to defy law; would that justify it?

of course one could argue that the state COULD do just about anything; but there would be serious repercussions of setting a precedent for the state being the arbiter of citizenship; instead of the administrator

could we strip prisoners of citizenship, and then deny them appeal rights in court; or just detail them arbitrarily?
could we strip the citizenship of political figures?
start with pro-marajuana groups, move through groups critical of the government, whistleblowers etc

the bigger issue however is an international one
could stripping of citizenship lead to a refusal to extradite?
do you remember the old "what if a briton hired a french postman to mail a bomb to his wife" argument

if an Australian is stripped of citizenship, it they attack australia in some way (easily foreseeable), would the Australian government be powerless to legally stop them as a stateless person is under nobodies jurisdiction

>>2348437
I talking about the reality that you have people over you with the power of such things. Its needed to maintain order.

>>2348428
that is a perfectly rational view; but the social contract is not black and white
it's a approximation of the average persons view
importantly, including that of the "offender" in question

in some cases the community's view is clear; but what about someone like edward snowden for instance?
the government of the day would be under a low of pressure to make a truly decisive decision

what this approach allows is the ultimately for the state to throw out any minority

it also directly undermines the rule of law, because in making a person stateless could be and in this case basically resulted in a individual escaping punishment for a crime
could we see a situation where a corrupt government made key figures within it (like a personal banker) stateless, a host country (like the cayman islands) harboring them

and if you were only a citizen provided you agreed with the laws, would many people objecting to the law start considering themselves stateless unilaterally (sovereign citizens)

>>2348460
Idon't think stripping someone of citizenship maintains order

in this case he was stripped of citizenship so Australia could claim they did something to stop the terrorist they raised; when in reality they are just washing their hands of it

order would be hard to maintain when anyone could loose the protection of the legal system at any moment
how do you separate a common criminal from someone who should be made stateless?
order is having a system; not just letting the government of the day click their fingers

>>2348364
>most countries work on the principle of citizenship by land, some by descent; but this measure seems to violate both
Most countries actually use ius sanguinis.
Ius soli is primarily used by former colonies in the Americas.

I have an friend who was stateless for about 10 years. She's a Serb from Montenegro living in Serbia. So when Serbia and Montenegro split she applied for dual citizenship. However the Mountain Nigger government doesn't like giving dual citizenship to Serbs because of electoral reasons.
She settled on just Serbian citizenship about a year and a half ago.

>>2348464
Then what you're asking isnt can or should the government be able to do this, but when this power is applicable.

>>2348480
>ius sanguinis.
that is what I meant by "citizen by descent"

china for instance believes ethnic chinese born in china are chinese citizens, regardless of their parents citizenship
it's inconsistent, but there are cases of ethnic Chinese living in other countries (esp. hong kong, tibet) having a child born in china and that child being detained

I try to avoid the latin, it discourages open debate

really interesting to hear about a state splitting
I guess in those instances withholding of citizenship would be mainly for pollitical reasons
they would hope people gravitiate to the country that suits them; thus you get two more homogeneous states

sometimes the isreali thing is done, sponsoring hard-line nationalists to live on (and thus demarcate) the border culturally

>>2348481
one follows the other

if the power can't be used effectively, and is a risk of tyranny to the community because of undefined applicability then i think it should be stopped

the US constitution I believe has specific protections guaranteeing people citizenship, enacted to stop southern states claiming blacks were not citizens thus were exempt from equal treatment
>mfw they let Mexicans in today on green cards so they can do exactly the same

File: civil flag of the USA.jpg (29KB, 400x220px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x220px

>>2348364
>do countries "grant" citizenship to native born peoples, or is it something inate.
Yes, when an American is given a birth certificate they have it tied to an entry in the New York Stock Exchange. This is because the USA is a corporation, not a state.