Ten million people around the world have no nationality
tracks.unhcr.org
tracks.unhcr.org
This is in no way an argument for anarchism. Political subdivisions are necessary for representing the people within them and balancing their interests against the other subdivisions. But there is no reason why any person should be excluded from basic rights and privileges because they aren't "owned" by any particular subdivision. Nothing could be less logical than that.
Those "rights and privileges" are enforced by physical means.
Consider a basic US example. City's deal with their homeless populations in different ways, but if any city is overly generous it quickly gets swamped. Further, cities can export their homeless by being overly draconian. Net result, it’s basically impossible to deal with the homeless problem at the local level.
Now, scale that up to 2 Billion poor people around the world.
PS: The tragedy of the commons applies to far more than just land. Closed national borders allow for significant social progress which is otherwise impossible as it would otherwise need to scale beyond what any country could possibly support.
It's real. People move different state to live and to do business for various reasons but most are really the benefits that other states offer.
There is a difference between nationalism (being loyal and passionate about one's nationality) and identity. This is particularly obvious when it comes to ethnicity and nationality. Do I identify myself as Chinese or Chinese American? As a Chinese do I identify myself as a Chinese-speaking HK person or a Chinese? Does one identifying oneself as American because of natural birth is the same as being a nationalist? When two New Yorkers ask each other "where are you from" is it significant to hear "I am from Queens", "I am from Bronx"? You don't hear two people say "I am human, an earthly being" because obviously they are human and it would be redundant to even say to each other as introduction. Context, audience matters.
Having a nationality is one form of identity. Yet, some don't have that nationality tag like many here do.
In China there is census register system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hukou_system). Basically you can live anywhere you want, but you will be treated as second-class resident outside of your birth/registered city/town. If you are wealthy, fine, if not, you are just as nobody as homeless. This including your education and social welfare. One of the key reasons for this is to manage population distribution and welfare distribution.
I doubt the issue is as simple as I believe you intend - I don't think there are many examples of draconian cities eliminating homelessness via exports. I also don't think overly generous cities are swamped as much as you believe - size of city & climate are larger factors in homeless population size than generosity.
http://www.kgw.com/story/news/2014/07/26/12578644/
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/09/11/2602391/san-franc...
Even when migration is allowed, people don't just move to better off-areas en masse. We see this with US states and countries in the Schengen Area. Somehow even Greenfield, CA ($9,226 per capita per year) manages to exist less than two hours from Palo Alto ($56,257 per capita per year).
I think the Schengen treaty approach of slowly adding new countries is a good long-term strategy, and I think US should join it. The population of the Schengen area is already 100M higher than the population of US, and there are several cities there that have higher living standards than anywhere in the US.
Turkey population ~75 million has accepted 1.5 million of them with ~200,000 more looking to enter the country.
For scale there are around 10 million illigal immigrants from Mexico. Picture another 5 million showing up next year with zero notice.
Don't get me wrong I think most countries could accept far more immigrants, but the much of the world is a long way from what most HN are used to. Consider, ethnic cleansing' is not just something that happened in WWII, it far more common than people want to admit. Poverty, language, ethnicity, and culture are real issues and complex issues.
PS: I think most people should read though every item on this list at least once. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansings And then realize a lot of things did not make the cut.
Okay, so you accept 5% of population, it doesn't help much the rest 95% of it. And then you struggle to assimilate them and may become a warzone yourself.
The commenter was talking about "slowly" adjusting rules and a very thought-out plan. Not "next year" and "zero notice".
Of course, some people stay. But some people always stay - "Greenfield, CA" is a place that would still exist be there 15 thousand residends or ten times less.
By the way, maybe you can consider it insignificant already.
I actually didn't think of it from that angle. I guess it could be argued that poor countries shouldn't enter reciprocal open border agreements with rich countries, out of their own self-interest. I'm guessing the movement of these Baltic people mostly benefited their new host nations, though?
Poor countries often only have bad choices. Either you leak population but get money from abroad workers, soften tension and enjoy capital movement - or you try to restrain population, get even poorer (less eager capital, same amount of export-able work for less people), face grief and political instability.
In that respect you can compare Baltics with Ukraine.
The difference to Ukraine is that the Baltic nations grew strong enough already during the final decades of Soviet Union, and they still remembered their pre-war independence.
In 1959, the population of Estonia was roughly the same as in 1939. The difference was that almost a third had been replaced by Russians.
Ethnic Estonians had been first purged by USSR in 1939-1941, then killed by war going back and forth over the country in 1941-1944, and then purged again by Stalin's further repressions until 1950's, by moving people to camps all over the Gulag and killing them there. After that, there was a bit of dual existence, and "Druzhby narodov nadozhnyy oplot!" was rather a less reliable bulwark of friendship than the song was saying.
Then, in 1991, came the singing revolution. After that, many Estonians have migrated to Finland, Sweden, Germany, and other countries, but they send money back home. In exchange, Estonians get guest workers from Russia or Belarus in the same way. Still, it's not that easy for Estonians, as for instance trained doctors and nurses often leave the country after their training.
Ukraine, in contrast, was run by various Russian cronies - the Orange revolution could not build nation -and has had endemic corruption all the time.
What you say about poor nations having bad choices is right as you either leak population or you build a police state that tries to restrain population. Education and eradication of corruption will help, but it's very slow work. I think the Baltic states are showing the way there.
Of course that doesn't hold true for all occupations. Doctors being a sore point, for one - they can't make what they would abroad mostly because most of the people are still paid miserable wages and won't be able to afford healthcare which would pay really high salaries to doctors.
This is an interesting thread about people being surprised about it: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eesti/comments/2xqd01/can_someone_e...
Quality of life is just worse in those regions. It's not very much, but still noticeable. One of the reasons why this is the case is just income being lower for equivalent work. Richer countries just tend to have the better companies with more reach.
Is there any evidence that this has ever actually happened? I have a feeling it is one of those lies that get passed around by people trying to score political points.
A little over half of the homeless population stay put, but from the populaion that starts migrating.
http://web.utk.edu/~edegeorg/TECH521/LaTeX/Migration.pdf
surveys identified the four most common reasons for mobility.
(1) No jobs available
(2) Eviction from housing
(3) No affordable housing available
*(4) No services available
*(1) The presence of relatives or friends in the new community
*(2) Shelters or missions were present in the new community
(3) Jobs were available in the new community
*(4) Good services and programs for the homeless were available in the new community
If I don't like your set of rules, I want to be able to go somewhere that has more agreeable ones.
I think that's still nationality, but a different type of nationality (choice rather than birthright) than we currently have.
Then so is private property. What rational basis is there for people having varying rights and privileges based on what side of an invisible line is the house they currently reside in. I am sure you won't mind a free for all at your home.
as well as planet or galaxy quadrant or specific species one was born on or at. Many people/societies have evolved past the stage of the valley/tribe/village and now the most of the human species is at region and nationality state. Some advanced people were able to evolve past that. It requires letting go identification characteristics that are just given by birth and mentally moving on to what her or his truely personal identification is, ie. result of her/his personal efforts, like education, life/work experience, personal spiritual and intellectual development, etc...
> What rational basis is there
there isn't. Just our low evolutionary stage. Deeply xenophobic.
I don't know what's so great about this. Is HN, a conglomeration of (mostly male) economic and educational elite, a "more evolved" state of social organization than a small-town church, which might draw in people from different economic walks of life?
in my view mentally associating yourself with any group is exactly the root of the division "us vs. them (and us obviously better [whatever that means] than them)" and things go downhill from that. In that regard any "elite" group (self-identifying itself as such) is pretty much indistinguishable from a small-town church.
This seems to be a deeply confused comment.
What about evolution is "high" or "low"? Which is a higher form of life, the housefly, or the Neanderthal? Which one is still around?
If aliens with FTL travel and psychic powers were to visit us and start wiping us out, would their xenophobia[1] mark them as a being at a "lower" evolutionary stage? If so, what is the use of such a classification?[2]
Evolution is not always "up." For that matter, "up" isn't always "up."
"The feedback loop never really ends, so a tenth year polysentience can be a priceless jewel or a psychotic wreck," ~Alpha Centauri
[1]And if they were the ones wiping us out, who would be more "phobic" (afraid), us or them?
[2]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvolutionaryLevel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partially_ordered_set
>If aliens with FTL travel and psychic powers were to visit us and start wiping us out, would their xenophobia[1]
>[1]And if they were the ones wiping us out, somehow I doubt they'd have much of a phobia.
you're right - FTL and xenophobia are incompatible. A xenophobia indicates intellectual capabilities level not sufficient for FTL. The same about "wiping out".
>Evolution is not always "up." For that matter, "up" isn't always "up."
"up" has a pretty clear direction on many axes. For a given axis it is the direction of higher degree of symmetry breakup whatever it means on that given axis. Complexity/specialization and sentience level for biological systems. Managed energy density for technological civilization. Violence control for social organization.
A poset is ordered on one relation, and you posit (see what I did there?) that natural selection does the same, and that for humans, it just happens to be greater or lesser degrees of xenophobia?
>A xenophobia indicates intellectual capabilities level not sufficient for FTL.
I don't buy this, and I'm not sure why you do. It certainly shouldn't be taken as an axiom.
> "up" has a pretty clear direction on many axes. For a given axis it is the direction of higher degree of symmetry breakup whatever it means on that given axis. Complexity/specialization and sentience level for biological systems. Managed energy density for technological civilization. Violence control for social organization.
The problem is that the axis isn't given. One is competing on all of these axes all at the same time. And, predictably, progress along one axis may mean regress along another. What if you have a technological civilization populated by sentients with greater or lesser degrees of violence? Did you know that identity theft has increased by astronomical amounts since 1960? And yet we have these shiny iPads. Have we progressed?
This is something to work towards, but it runs up against some pretty basic problems.
For one thing, enforcement of those rights will entail war.
For another, some rights are contrary to local culture. For example, the right to leave Islam is contrary to the culture of a region which wants sharia law. The right for certain people to get married and live together and have sex (both of which are relevant even if marriage goes away) is contrary to certain other religious cultures. Are those cultures wrong? Are you going to tell people their culture is wrong?
Freedom of religion -and that includes no religion- is a right I defend. (Article 18 UDHR)
Freedom to marry is sadly ambiguously worded in UNDHR But I defend the right for people of age -regardless of gender- to marry and have a family. (Article 16)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_...
And so, while they are just shot some people made up they have a bit more going for them than that.
And how do you propose to enforce that right?
Then why don't you give up yours?
> What rational basis is there for people having varying rights and privileges based on what side of an invisible line they currently reside on, or at what latitude and longitude on planet earth they were born?
Same can be said about private property. What the rational basis. Are you ready to give up the concept of ownership? I'd be glad to settle in your home, eat your food and poop in your toilets without flushing.
> This is in no way an argument for anarchism.
> Political subdivisions are necessary for representing the people within them and balancing their interests against the other subdivisions.
But that's exactly what nations are.
> But there is no reason why any person should be excluded from basic rights and privileges because they aren't "owned" by any particular subdivision.
But you just said Political subdivisions are necessary ...
There is also the Schengen right to reside in any EU country.
The long term way this pans out is less clear. People don't lose their ethnicity when they change nationality. You end up with irridentists and conflicts, such as the "green line" across Cyprus.
Schengen is a customs union which allows passport-free travel within its borders, but the EEA is the area you can freely migrate within.
I believe that you're not really arguing against nations (or states) but against "exclusion". I think you're arguing that there may be political divisions, but that the individuals themselves should be the sole arbiters of which political division they (for lack of a better word) belong to at any given time. Any political subdivision should not be able to exclude someone.
Is that fair?
[1] The surface contradiction is that "nationality is ultimately an obsolete concept" while "political subdivisions are necessary". This apparent contradiction can be resolved in a few ways but I believe I get what you intended. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Really it boils down to decentralization vs centralization. You mention that people are "excluded" from rights and privileges, but the problem with the globalist view you espouse is that by lumping in a nation and it's people with the world you remove the political lines in a meaningful form.
National Sovereignty is the real issue at hand here, but it's a sensitive subject that not very many people like to touch. I've heard some fairly powerful beltway people reference it as dead, but if that's true our entire government is operating under a fallacy, there are some big implications here and I would love to see more academic research (as in, if anyone has any links I would appreciate them) on the subject.
I do think the lessons of the internet are important here though, namely that if you try to claim no nationality, peoples nationality becomes Earth, and a global government along with it. I want to go the opposite direction, less federal power, more state power, more local power (constitutionally restricted of course).
The only oath I ever swore was to protect and defend the Constitution, and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit back and watch America be Europeanized without an intellectual fight, because my forefathers fought hard to establish the freedoms I have here that still don't exist anywhere else in the world.
Yes I'm aware of the other countries higher levels of "actual" freedom, particularly the nordic ones, but I think our idealistic vision is still a superior one. For example, Vincent Reynouard of France was recently sentenced to two years in jail for his non-violent historical opinions regarding the Holocaust. I tend to side with Voltaire on free speech, apparently the French don't.
These same issues are also readily apparent in the TPP. I think it is a good microcosm of the kind of affect on nations you will get with a reduction of nationalism, eg, equally exploited populace by a supranational oligarchy.
Also rights aren't fundamental in nature, they only exist because groups of people come together, produce/work, and that work provides the benefits you call "rights".
Others just consume those rights.
And given that resources are limited, and that highly advanced societies require highly advanced skills, there is no "logic" in flooding countries with seekers of benefits who are mostly not going to add any value to that society for 3 generations while costing the resources of 10. They will simply consume.
That's like saying a tennis ball and a planet are the same because they're both round. Scale, you're missing the scale of it.
What is this random analogy and what does it have to do with mine?
> Scale, you're missing the scale of it.
The number of tennis balls that would fit in the volume of this planet has 25 digits in it.
So no, it's not even close to the scale of anything. And what does being round have to do with it?
I can't even figure out what your argument is.
You can apply a 10% increase in population each year, due to benefit seeking immigration, to a country.
There is no "scale" issue here.
And even if there was, the reasoning that followed can stand on its own (because the analogy was directed on the OP's analogy, and not on the reasoning provided).
But outside the family there is a solution: Just treat everyone equally. There's no biological reason why I should care about the passport of a man I have never met, any more than I should care about his race or tribe or religion.
Yes, mass immigration would mean that you would be worse off and the immigrants better off (although spreading the immigration period over say 50 years might limit your costs in this equation). But isn't that the right thing to do? Do those people deserve to live in absolute poverty? If not, doesn't that mean you have an obligation to help?
Nationality is not yet an obsolete concept, but society is slowly moving in that direction. I think Charles Darwin said it best:
"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races."
Actually you should care, for a lot of reasons. Your presumption of not caring comes from taking for granted a lot of things. One first thing that you absolutely must care is security. The world around you and your loved ones is relatively safe thanks to multitude of operating services that make sure that the individuals roaming free are not that crazy, not that malevolent, not that contagious, and in short will not have that much of a negative impact on society at large (which includes you). Achieving that is no easy task, especially when you also want such things as freedom and openness to the rest of the world. Of course, there are also a lot of other important considerations that require individual identification, and I'm sure you'll manage to understand many of them on your own.
'Rights' and 'privileges' are just as abstract a concept as 'nationality'.
Not to mention that they all rely on underlying 'culture' - different nations, rights, and privileges are all seen in different cultures.
Edit: and of course, most of the comments here have nothing to do with the article, which is specifically about the situation in Africa. Nobody read it obviously.
No one "forced" the concept of nations upon Africans, except by setting an example for what nation states can achieve. The time of colonialism was largely the opposite of having nations. It was the nations that overthrew colonialists.
Sure they wanted nation states, but they got crappy ones. And it could not go much better. Their failure is rooted in past outside their political control.
War is also how the European national borders have been decided. In the U.S., the state borders are remarkably similar to African borders: straight lines along a particular meridian or circle of latitude. So is the Canadian border.
nations should be something you subscribe to, because you like their culture, are willing to learn the local language, and so on.
beyond that, pay taxes to whatever community you live in (infrastructure use fee).
If yes, on what basis and on whose enforcement?
Overall, we're better off - but it's silly to claim capital infusion is automagically harmless. Again, perhaps this isn't the argument you're making. Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean?
That's because the same interests that support free movement of capital are served by limited mobility for persons (in the both roles as "consumer" and as "labor"), and those interests are disproportionately powerful in their influence over policy (and the discussions of policy issues in the mass media.)
I do a lot of traveling, and my situation is a little unique. I have 2 citizenships and another permanent residency.
All three of those countries define you as a "resident for tax purposes" as spending over 1/2 a year (usually > 180 days) physically in that country.
So what happens if I don't spend more than 1-2 months in any country, and all of those countries are not ones I have a permanent legal right to be in i.e. I'm just passing through as a tourist.
What country am I a resident of if I keep that up? Last time I did it for 2 years, I'm planning to set off for at least 4 this time.
[1] https://info.undp.org/global/documents/hr/Guide-to-the-Issua...
He has to carry UN travel documents on his person at all time, stating his situation. Its a pain in the bum to be stateless.
I don't think any of us here knows what that means.