How is discrimination by citizenship more acceptable than e.g. discrimination by ethnicity or race? All of these are outcomes of birth lottery.
While it sucks that people from other societies dont feel like those societies are good for them, it doesnt mean that citizens of the host society should extend that responsibility to people who do not share responsibility for that society like citizens do.
Essentially these foreign workers are mercenaries, and do not derserve the same loyalty and protections that citizens do
Even removing legal barriers, it can't be as easy, since changing citizenships necessitates a very large geographical move, while changing jobs may a require a large move, a small move, or no move. Changing countries changes your entire life - you are leaving your home, its culture, and everybody you know there. It's cruel to imply the people who would be made miserable by such changes simply don't matter.
Another reason is that the responsibilities between citizen and society are fulfilled on a long timescale. A society will educate you, and then you need to contribute to the economy in that society to pay it back so to speak. Technological innovation, military service, rasing future citizens. Any of these things can only happen on a long timescale so quickly switching citizenship doesnt allow that contract to be fulfilled
If that was the case, most existing citizens would lose their status :)
> You cant switch those that quickly
It is much faster with the globalization and youtube-ization. After all, "We all live in Amerika".
Btw, the notion of what we call today a citizenship arose just at late 18th century. So, it's not something fundamental that has always been there.
To be specific, for clarity: "Most" is a dishonest word in this context, and regardless the parent did not imply a legal distinction. As for definition: First, nobody here is necessarily using the word by some specific definition invented at a particular time, but rather in the colloquial sense of being a member of a country; and second, even if they were restricting the sense of the word to the one you are referring to, recency (if that's what you're implying by "18th century"...?) does not imply some kind of triviality.
As for the specific wording, replace "Most" with "Many", the point still stands.
Again, please refrain from moderation and silencing attempts. Thank you.
(2) There’s very few sustainable global competitive advantages. Sometimes you might have a better natural resource by virtue of geography and getting in first to “own“ it. But for most businesses, reducing trade barriers really just introduces more competition.