Maybe but not when it means that they are able to take a citizenship from someone.
Its not about fixing mistakes, thats not so bad, but the government being able to take citizenship of individuals for whatever reason is entirely wrong and will definitely be misused.
Students of history will note that governments throughout history have sought to disposess and expel (not merely deport) groups who were proven to present a destabilizing or rebellious influence against national security and the domestic tranquility. Although there was surely contemporary outrage, there has often been ample popular support and a lack of regret for the expulsions. Because often, that was a concrete step towards restoring peace and order to a nation. This process was often a last resort, or a penultimate solution, if you will, after attempting to persuade, convert, and pacify those groups domestically. What nation or city would willingly decimate its population if those citizens could be made productive and loyal instead?
This may no longer be a wise or viable strategy, and it is certainly a good way for most people to get ridiculed and demonetized when they even suggest that such a thing may be possible, and it is surely frowned-upon at the highest international and diplomatic levels. But again, as a student of history, it has been an actual process that did happen, and had lasting effects, and it was repeatedly employed, so surely there must have been some rationale or benefit to the process, rather than pure evil or malevolence, whether it happened 736 or 87 years ago.
Maybe but not when it means that they are able to take a citizenship from someone. Its not about fixing mistakes, thats not so bad, but the government being able to take citizenship of individuals for whatever reason is entirely wrong and will definitely be misused.
Students of history will note that governments throughout history have sought to disposess and expel (not merely deport) groups who were proven to present a destabilizing or rebellious influence against national security and the domestic tranquility. Although there was surely contemporary outrage, there has often been ample popular support and a lack of regret for the expulsions. Because often, that was a concrete step towards restoring peace and order to a nation. This process was often a last resort, or a penultimate solution, if you will, after attempting to persuade, convert, and pacify those groups domestically. What nation or city would willingly decimate its population if those citizens could be made productive and loyal instead?
This may no longer be a wise or viable strategy, and it is certainly a good way for most people to get ridiculed and demonetized when they even suggest that such a thing may be possible, and it is surely frowned-upon at the highest international and diplomatic levels. But again, as a student of history, it has been an actual process that did happen, and had lasting effects, and it was repeatedly employed, so surely there must have been some rationale or benefit to the process, rather than pure evil or malevolence, whether it happened 736 or 87 years ago.