Comment by dumberquestions
5 hours ago
The most controversial aspect is plans to deport immigrants deemed insufficiently assimilated/productive, even if they have acquired citizenship, I think your description understates that a little.
5 hours ago
The most controversial aspect is plans to deport immigrants deemed insufficiently assimilated/productive, even if they have acquired citizenship, I think your description understates that a little.
What isn't controversial in 2026? I guess people are running around with the premise that denaturalizing and deporting is something that can't be considered in any situation but you can do this with just about any topic.
"And remember: Service Guarantees Citizenship!" [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO1vWxUqpFI
Everyone draws the line somewhere, including you.
Not every country wants cultural diversity. I find it weird as an American as that's sort of the default here but I can understand some cultures wanting strong social and economic cohesion.
Citizenship is a promise. It would be one thing if they wanted to screen more aggressively for assimilation before granting citizenship (which I would still disagree with) but it's quite alarming to campaign on breaking that promise.
The assumption being made of course cultures must only change from external forces and that they cannot change internally. It comes from an ancient caste based world view where people are defined by their birthright and do not change from this, that we know now is foolish to believe in.
Yep. Trying to steer culture is like grasping at smoke
Smart phones and social media have impacted culture most places far more than a few immigrants ever could - folks should spend more time worrying about those and less scapegoating of immigrants
It's a fringe party with fringe opinions. It got 0.59% of votes in the last election despite the huge funds provided by the Mullvad co-founder.
A citizen is a citizen. You don't create second class citizen, who can see their rights revoked at any time, whereas the other class never has to fear anything like that. That's basic democracy 101.
Multiple citizenship is handled with quite a bit variance over the globe, including those we call democracies. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_citizenship
Citizenship obligations for multiple citizenship is quite interesting from a legal perspective. Some citizenship require taxation regardless of where one live, which makes it possible to have a requirement to pay taxation to multiple countries. Military service is also an other interesting aspect. Giving people with multiple citizenship more rights than people with single citizenship would naturally cause problems, and yet you don't want citizens with different rights as that would indeed create different classes of citizenship.
A person can also end up with one citizenship in a country that allows multiple citizenship, and one which does not, and the citizenship of the person then depend on which country is being asked.
1 reply →
The inventors of democracy, ancient Athens, specifically had a vote to ostracise (kick out) citizens.
4 replies →
It goes against the principles of classical liberalism: rule of law, civil liberties, and limited government. I don't think we should just shrug our shoulders and say that it's fine if some countries want to strip rights from people on the basis of race or economic class.
Stripping citizenship for a reason that doesn’t involve a crime goes a bit beyond not wanting cultural diversity.
I know the word is used in cases where it’s hyperbole or just not accurate but there in fact people where the term racist is perfectly applicable.
I don’t think the poster you responded to realizes what they said
Thinking it's atrocious to take away someone's citizenship just because of where they previously came from is in no way a uniquely American thought. In fact it's shared by most people around the world who have a bit of empathy, compassion, and aren't racist.
I think what they were saying is that America is generally more tolerant of cultural and ethnic diversity (i.e. it’s the default here) than many other countries.
5 replies →
> Not every country wants
This phrase is problematic and dangerous:
A country doesn't want anything; it's not a person. People use this phrasing to claim some authority (always for what that individual wants, of course) over others who disagree - 'the country wants, and I speak for the country'.
More importantly, humans have fundamental individual rights, including freedom - again, not countries but individuals. The rights are no less because some other people don't like the individual - immunity to the majority's desires almost defines rights in a practical sense; otherwise they aren't generally needed. You can't force people to leave or to do anything else because you don't like them.
It's dangerous because it's often used to violate rights and rationalize cruelties.
Nothing controversial about this. Mass immigration destroys social cohesion and trust. It gets even worse when immigrants don't assimilate, it's a time bomb. Obtaining citizenship shouldn't give you the right to impose your foreign culture and habits that are alien to the country which allowed you to stay in.
I think actually the whole idea behind obtaining a citizenship is so it cant be taken away from you since its essential to modern life.
Surely, if the individual breaks rules or laws, they should be held accountable legally as any other citizen born with the same citizenship. Taking it away from you shouldn't be an option.
Citizenship can be taken away if a country deems it necessary. And it may be necessary to save a country's identity in cases where countries took in too many people who don't share western values or descent.
Only if natives-born citizens who don't assimilate appropriately are also ejected from the country.
Usually those are put in prisons or similar arrangements
>Obtaining citizenship shouldn't give you the right to impose your foreign culture and habits that are alien to the country which allowed you to stay in
This is plain wrong. Obtaining citizenship literally means "our system decided that you assimilated enough". If that's not the case -- don't grant it.
Otherwise you're making citizenship useless as a concept.
We all know government representation of the citizen is at its peak!
Governments shouldn’t be allowed to correct mistakes?
2 replies →
No, that is controversial. Nothing you said is based in reality. And we all know the part you're not saying out loud.