One of the critiques of my immigration proposal in “C,A” of multi-tiered citizenship is that it is not novel; it exists in many countries. I see that point. But it focuses only on the end point of the analysis and not on how I get there, which is important.
My tiered citizenship is derived against the background of desirable full mobility of labor (worldwide), existence of citizenship premium, defense by that premium by indigenous populations, and trade-off between migration and migrants' rights (faced by indigenous population).
So to come to the tiered citizenship I go through all these steps which are important in order to understand the logic of the proposal; but also to see what would change if one of these steps were to changed (e.g. if the premium goes down; if the trade-off becomes sharper etc).
In that part I also argue that citizenship is becoming "degrounded"; that we could have a situation such that all citizens of A live in other countries & receive income earned in other countries, while only Bs live in country A. Citizenship is revealed to be an "ideal" category.
Degroundedness means that one can be US citizen, live in Europe, receive US social security income whose origin is tax on US investment in the Philippines. So neither is the citizen living in his country, nor is income he gets earned in his country.
As degroundedness becomes more common, it reveals that the old-fashioned citizenship: living in one's country, working there, earning income there, participating in political life there, becomes increasingly irrelevant. This is why citizenship is just an "ideal" category.
Degroundedness is something new and shows us that in globalization the concept of citizenship has gone far from the one of the 19th C, or even of Aristotle's. Has implication for political life too.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
