Prong 1 is to say, "place of birth, colour of passport, people are discriminating on irrelevant things, don't do that."
Prong 2 is for someone else to say, "OK, place of birth, colour of passport etc. are basically easily-observed proxies for the real thing of interest, which is having some substantial connection to the country/nation/state; the latter is the thing that's directly relevant but it's too subjective to define properly let alone measure directly so we have to rely on proxies (probably in practise some hodgepodge of them with odd edge cases and interactions)." and to reply, "yes, I'll grant you that (maybe if only for the sake of argument), but even if you could neatly define and measure the 'substantial connection' it's still wrong to deny citizenship to people willing to physically relocate themselves."
What I'm seeing in boldface in the OP is "fully open borders and citizenship on demand for residents" which looks pretty clearly like prong 2; however the insistence that this about place of birth looks like prong 1.
I disagree with prong 1 but am undecided on prong 2 (and even if I'm persuaded of it, there's still the debate as to how much it's a practical thing to start chasing now and how much it's a utopian dream to start chasing some time after doing the other utopian stuff like eliminating private property); I'd like to see prong 2 debated on it's merits rather than on prong 1 reasoning.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2015-07-03 01:56 pm (UTC)Prong 1 is to say, "place of birth, colour of passport, people are discriminating on irrelevant things, don't do that."
Prong 2 is for someone else to say, "OK, place of birth, colour of passport etc. are basically easily-observed proxies for the real thing of interest, which is having some substantial connection to the country/nation/state; the latter is the thing that's directly relevant but it's too subjective to define properly let alone measure directly so we have to rely on proxies (probably in practise some hodgepodge of them with odd edge cases and interactions)." and to reply, "yes, I'll grant you that (maybe if only for the sake of argument), but even if you could neatly define and measure the 'substantial connection' it's still wrong to deny citizenship to people willing to physically relocate themselves."
What I'm seeing in boldface in the OP is "fully open borders and citizenship on demand for residents" which looks pretty clearly like prong 2; however the insistence that this about place of birth looks like prong 1.
I disagree with prong 1 but am undecided on prong 2 (and even if I'm persuaded of it, there's still the debate as to how much it's a practical thing to start chasing now and how much it's a utopian dream to start chasing some time after doing the other utopian stuff like eliminating private property); I'd like to see prong 2 debated on it's merits rather than on prong 1 reasoning.