What is the Proper Basis of Citizenship?

[admin]

Citizenship is among the most important political institutions in any nation. It determines who belongs to the political community, who enjoys its protections, who owes it allegiance, and who will ultimately help shape its future.

Yet there is surprisingly little agreement regarding the principles upon which citizenship ought to rest.

Should citizenship be acquired automatically by birth within a nation's territory? Should it be inherited through ancestry and descent? Should it be earned through naturalization, cultural assimilation, or demonstrated loyalty to the nation? Is citizenship primarily a legal status, a cultural inheritance, a political membership, or some combination of these things?

Throughout history, different societies have answered these questions in different ways. Some have emphasized birthplace. Others have emphasized lineage, culture, language, religion, or civic commitment.

Our founder, Alfred Cromwell, does not believe that birth within a country's borders, by itself, is a sufficient basis for citizenship. For example, he believes those born to illegal alien parents should not get citizenship, and he also believes in citizenship tied to the father, since "patria" in Latin means "fatherland". Put bluntly, "you are who your father is." He also believes that there should be religious tests to hold public office. His justification? The North Carolina Constitution of 1776, which contained a provision disqualifying from office those who denied the truth of the Protestant religion or the divine authority of the Old and New Testaments.

Similarly, the Maryland Constitution of 1776 required declarations of Christian belief for certain officeholders.

So, citizenship in some states was very much tied to religion, historically.

However, this discussion has not been created merely to repeat a predetermined conclusion. Members are encouraged to defend, challenge, refine, or reject that position through reasoned argument. City Tutoring itself does not hold a position, since some of us at the staff level hold somewhat different views.

What, in your view, is the proper basis of citizenship? Do you agree with Cromwell's position?

What makes a person a member of a nation?

And what obligations, if any, do nations owe to future generations when determining the answer?

[Koentek]

This is such a multifaceted question and in a sense mathematical as well. I cannot help but liken this to Abstract Algebra; there are many kinds of algebraic structures such as groups, fields, rings and more - yet there are stringent laws preserving the distinctness between them. However it may be argued that certain algebraic structures are closer to some than other. For example semi-groups to groups than magmas to groups. Furthermore it is not clear how narrow or wide one's perspective is; is the citizenship debate on the scale of differentiating fields and groups or is it on the scale of differentiating groups that are Abelian or not.

But I believe Mr Cromwell's impulse in defining a citizen of a nation is generally correct. In our modern globalised world, citizenship of developed Western nations has become a commodity and resident foreigners once acquiring a passport superficially pronounce themselves as true inheritors of that country's patrimony, while inwardly (an understatement) practice their old religion and culture. When one's heritage is being auctioned off, who can blame for their hatred of mass immigration? Among Twitter circles, this immigration debate can be thought of as divided into two camps on the conservative side: Civic nationalism and ethnonationalism. The former emphasising that an assimilated foreigner may become part of the national family whereas the latter maintain that citizenship is passed through blood.

In my opinion, the true and biblical view lies in between. The scriptures do not shy away from ethnic distinctions with the nation of Israel being set apart from others with laws forbidding miscegenation. However this nation was not set apart due to their genetic makeup, but their faith in God. Moreover it is my belief that the Church catholic (lowercase c) is the continuation of Israel whose membership demands faith in Christ. That said, we are not Marcionites and hence should heed God's actions in the Old Testament as well. God's holiness in a sense was embodied in the Mosaic law and the distinctness of Israel, even within Israel the Levites were set apart to be priests of God. But again, gentiles could join the nation of Israel, and even if they did not, were granted equal treatment under the law for the Jews themselves were foreigners in Egypt. Ultimately I believe John the Baptist and the Apostle Paul put it best: "And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham" (Mt 3:9) and "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." (Ro 11:18)

Nations were created by the providence of God and were given lands to call their own. Though we are totally depraved and corrupt as a result of original sin, we cannot view all of nature in this lens. Things become evil when they are estranged from God e.g. love becoming lust. But our human conscience though flawed and imperfect is indeed from God and is a grace given to all, both elect and non-elect. The idea of distinct nations, though imperfect, are not evil at their core.

In practice, I believe a nation reserves the right to restrict immigration in the future on the basis of: culture, ethnicity, skill or religion. There is no sin in any of those choices because immigration law is the prerogative of the state, but there is a sin in uncontrolled mass immigration against the wishes of populace resulting ultimately in demographic replacement. However a nation cannot and should not infringe on the rights of a citizen who obtained citizenship prior to these hypothetical changes for not fitting the new changes, that is a grave sin in of itself. The nation should not have the right to rescind citizenship either on the sole basis of ethnicity either. A nation may also instil and empower Christian principles in law, which would cause many culturally incompatible people to leave any way. A nation should be a recognisable and distinct entity but it is entirely possible for law-abiding and God-fearing immigrants to be grafted in - it is a sin to unjustly persecute them and it is a sin for them to not graciously and totally assimilate.

[nyquistfrequency]

What koentek said reminds me of the race of the soul.
"The body is the externality of the soul and the soul is the race seen from the inside."
However, "there are many cases of people who are exactly of the same race of the body, of the same tribe, sometimes even, brothers or fathers and sons, of the same blood in the most real sense, but who nevertheless fail to understand each other. A barrier separates their souls, their way of feeling and seeing is different, and the common race of the body and common blood can do nothing about that. A possibility of comprehension exists, and therefore of true solidarity, of deep unity, only where a common “race of the soul” exists."

This article does a decent summary:
https://gornahoor.net/?p=8105

It is always the case that like seeks like, however, racial purity is not purely physical. So how does one integrate or select for members of a nation in the natal sense? How does one prevent a decline in racial quality?

[Koentek]

What koentek said reminds me of the race of the soul.
"The body is the externality of the soul and the soul is the race seen from the inside."
However, "there are many cases of people who are exactly of the same race of the body, of the same tribe, sometimes even, brothers or fathers and sons, of the same blood in the most real sense, but who nevertheless fail to understand each other. A barrier separates their souls, their way of feeling and seeing is different, and the common race of the body and common blood can do nothing about that. A possibility of comprehension exists, and therefore of true solidarity, of deep unity, only where a common “race of the soul” exists."

This article does a decent summary:
https://gornahoor.net/?p=8105

It is always the case that like seeks like, however, racial purity is not purely physical. So how does one integrate or select for members of a nation in the natal sense? How does one prevent a decline in racial quality?

Thank you for informing me of the concept of the race of the soul, it is the first time I have come across that. It is undeniable that en masse a group of a particular ethnos gives rise to a particular culture — the extent to which this culture can be said to be downstream of genetics, I do not know.
Truthfully, I have not delved deep into ethnonationalist circles but a general truth I see be implied is that not every single member of a race exhibits behaviours characteristic of that race yet I have never seen a metaphysical explanation to why that may be the case.

Ultimately I defer to scripture which I believe does indeed group individual members of nations together e.g. the collective punishment of Egypt in Book of Exodus. But ultimately the Imago Dei and the stain of Original Sin greatly diminish the credit that can be given to prosperity arising from one's race.

Nyquistfrequency, what do you think of the division of humans into biological races?

[nyquistfrequency]

What koentek said reminds me of the race of the soul.
"The body is the externality of the soul and the soul is the race seen from the inside."
However, "there are many cases of people who are exactly of the same race of the body, of the same tribe, sometimes even, brothers or fathers and sons, of the same blood in the most real sense, but who nevertheless fail to understand each other. A barrier separates their souls, their way of feeling and seeing is different, and the common race of the body and common blood can do nothing about that. A possibility of comprehension exists, and therefore of true solidarity, of deep unity, only where a common “race of the soul” exists."

This article does a decent summary:
https://gornahoor.net/?p=8105

It is always the case that like seeks like, however, racial purity is not purely physical. So how does one integrate or select for members of a nation in the natal sense? How does one prevent a decline in racial quality?

Thank you for informing me of the concept of the race of the soul, it is the first time I have come across that. It is undeniable that en masse a group of a particular ethnos gives rise to a particular culture — the extent to which this culture can be said to be downstream of genetics, I do not know.
Truthfully, I have not delved deep into ethnonationalist circles but a general truth I see be implied is that not every single member of a race exhibits behaviours characteristic of that race yet I have never seen a metaphysical explanation to why that may be the case.

Ultimately I defer to scripture which I believe does indeed group individual members of nations together e.g. the collective punishment of Egypt in Book of Exodus. But ultimately the Imago Dei and the stain of Original Sin greatly diminish the credit that can be given to prosperity arising from one's race.

Nyquistfrequency, what do you think of the division of humans into biological races?

The body and station one is born into is an expression or symbol of some incorporeal essence. Which was the reason for the caste system in India. Naturally, this is the same with races, every corporeal manifestation is an approximation of some aspect of a higher order. Absolute absence is the definition of impossible and lacks all reality, so experience must continue after bodily death. However, one dies and is reborn in every moment, so what currently conditions the continuity of this life will condition the next. The soul (a particular individual essence) will find the world proper to its perceptual conditioning. Siddhartha Gautama was born a prince, Srinivasa Ramanujan was born a Brahmin. However, there are many incompetents born of high status and many geniuses of low birth, how does one explain this? This is what I suspect has happened, the mixing has gotten to the point where nearly everyone has fragments of noble blood, yet few have the capacity to use it to its full potential. The opposite can be true as well, if the biology is malfunctioning, it can no longer reflect the soul's intent properly. It can also be the case that one can unlock latent capacities (siddhis) by resolving some ignorance (original sin).
This is just somewhat speculative so far.

"It is certainly true that all composite substances are liable to decomposition: that this decomposition, when it takes place in the animal world, is called death: and that the human body is a substance compounded of the four elements. But it is also true that the elements of Paradise, where man is created, are not subject to this law, seeing that they are most pure and incorruptible heavenly essences; and if man had remained in this pure and celestial region, his body would be incapable of natural decay. Adam, however, in an evil day for our race, disobeyed the Creator, and straightaway was driven forth to the beasts, into the world of corruptible elements which God had created for the beasts only. From that day forward his food was derived from perishable substances, and death began to work in his members. The pure elements of his creation were gradually mingled and infected with the corruptible elements of the outer world and thus his body became more and more gross, and liable, through its grossness, to natural decay and death. The process of degeneration was, of course, slow in the case of Adam and his first descendants; but, as time went on, the seed out of which men were generated became more and more infected with perishable elements. The continued use of corruptible food rendered their bodies more and more gross - and human life was soon shortened to a very brief span indeed."

There is no evolution, life involved, percipitated/solidified out of an amorphous superbeing, pure potential became more and more constrained by form, things were previously less physical less substance and more essence, less successive "how" (perishable) and more simultaneous "why" (immutable). So a bacterium did not evolve into a fish did not evolve into a monkey which evolved into a human. This "evolution" would mean one could derive the whole from the part which is impossible. A thing cannot become other than what it is. Rather the ape is the degeneration of the human.

Adaptation is always a specialization and therefore a limitation of scope/potential. Mutation is simply a degeneration. All forms of specialization implies loss of potential, one cannot specialize one's way to an increased capacity. The degeneration catalyzed by inbreeding is already present on a macro scale, all biology is a machine trying to repair itself while forgetting itself. This is the case with aging and cancer is forgetting at a cellular level. All degeneration is forgetting the principle which governs one existence. We can see that this theory immediately aligns to the long lifespans mentioned in the bible, things were not as solidified and mechanized, there was a greater connection to God so people lived longer, possessed greater health, probably also had remarkable healing abilities, since nothing was forgotten it could simply be regenerated.

What we see of the various races are various stages of degeneration, apes are degenerated humans and monkeys are degenerated apes. It's called the descent of man and not the ascent of man for a reason. So this presents the character of a racial hierarchy of those closer to the Principle and those further away.

[mwtichen]

There's a YouTube channel that more or less touched on this with a recent video titled "What is an American": https://youtu.be/MIGI9h7RiCc?si=LDr0YtXlCIOoj6Le.

The creator is not Christian and approaches this from a "biological" point of view. Still, I think he made several good points.

Personally, I would be satisfied with Cromwell's idea of patrilineal citizenship, as my son is half white American, half Chinese.

[Casus_Conscientiae]

I claim that the right of voting and holding public office is an essential and sine qua non part of the dividing line between a citizen and an alien, and not just merely an honorable perquisite of citizenship. I will attempt later on, Deo volente, to prove this rigorously.