We could call 'the citizenry' precisely that range of people which fully enjoys political rights. My contention is that a characteristic of fascism is restriction of citizenry to some subnational set of individuals in a modern administrative-bureaucratic context. In a non-fascist state you are a citizen simply by virtue of birth, i.e. of existing at all. In a fascist state, you have to somehow qualify to be a citizen. For example, in the hypothetical unionised state case, only union members are citizens in the full sense. But the only just delimitation of citizenry is a delimitation by national boundaries, because the nation is the proper community in which sovereignty should be vested and through which political rights can be legitimately excercised. (This is why the EU, which seeks to give Germans political rights over livelihood of Spaniards through supranational legislation and administration is a misguided failure). So, to answer your question the restriction of rights to a group called 'the citizenry' would be just if all the members of a nation are characteristically included in that group.
|
Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)
|
 (August 18th, 2018, 12:41)Bacchus Wrote: We could call 'the citizenry' precisely that range of people which fully enjoys political rights. My contention is that a characteristic of fascism is restriction of citizenry to some subnational set of individuals in a modern administrative-bureaucratic context. In a non-fascist state you are a citizen simply by virtue of birth, i.e. of existing at all. In a fascist state, you have to somehow qualify to be a citizen. For example, in the hypothetical unionised state case, only union members are citizens in the full sense. But the only just delimitation of citizenry is a delimitation by national boundaries, because the nation is the proper community in which sovereignty should be vested and through which political rights can be legitimately excercised. What about birth citizenship for children of foreigners? What about illegal aliens? Quote: In a fascist state, you have to somehow qualify to be a citizen. Again, needing qualification for full political rights has occurred in all traditional societies. What's the difference, modernity just has a modern bureaucratic state controlling it all? You can certainly make this distinction, but I'm not sure it's meaningful, as it seems to amount to 'in the age of modern bureaucracy we have modern bureaucracy, when previously there wasn't'. If modern India still had an explicit caste system enforced legally, with occupations dependent on caste, you would call it fascist, so I really don't see how your distinction is meaningful.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the...3aa15efa26
Another day, another bunch of fash are denying people citizenship and rights. (August 30th, 2018, 00:33)Nicolae Carpathia Wrote: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the...3aa15efa26 That is deeply disturbing. Even if the allegations happen to be true - and frankly I would consider that unprovable, as does the US government, hence this: Quote:When Juan, the former soldier, received a letter from the State Department telling him it wasn’t convinced that he was a U.S. citizen, it requested a range of obscure documents — evidence of his mother’s prenatal care, his baptismal certificate, rental agreements from when he was a baby. If they had proof that he wasn't a citizen, they wouldn't be asking 'well can you prove you are'. Of course, they shouldn't be anyway, because the legal premise is still 'innocent until proven guilty'. ... anyway, even if they were true, they're punishing a person who has lived in the US all their life, being at least 20 years (the article says 1950s to 1990s) for someone else's actions. They may not call it punishment, but taking away someone's de facto citizenship - trapping them in a foreign country, according to the article - is an effective punishment regardless. It seems pretty obvious that someone who has been in the country for twenty, thirty, fifty years is a totally different proposition from someone who has just snuck over the border yesterday. How about a 'statute of limitations/squatter's rights' law which says if you've lived in the country near-continuously for X years (I would say 10, but I can see an argument for up to 30), you're a citizen now whatever happened? That way they can stop shoving funding at the 'what if your midwife lied?!?!' and 'what if you lied half a century ago?!?!' investigations, which are going to achieve precisely nothing of value anyway. hS
Removal of passport due to not being a US citizen is not a criminal matter. So rules like presumption of innocence and statue of limitations don't apply. That's a dumb rule and should go totally away. For example DWI implied consent. DWI/Trump attacking illegal immigrants are both examples of rules not mattering when they attack people we don't like anyway. Trump's actions here are just an extension this and adding illegal immigrants to the list.
Buried in the article
Quote:The government alleges that from the 1950s through the 1990s, some midwives and physicians along the Texas-Mexico border provided U.S. birth certificates to babies who were actually born in Mexico. In a series of federal court cases in the 1990s, several birth attendants admitted to providing fraudulent documents. But no, 'Trump is specially fascist', the fascist-phobic lunatic cries.
...also in the article:
Quote:A 2009 government settlement in a case litigated by the American Civil Liberties Union seemed to have mostly put an end to the passport denials. (...) But under President Trump, the passport denials and revocations appear to be surging, becoming part of a broader interrogation into the citizenship of people who have lived, voted and worked in the United States for their entire lives. Thus, it doesn't seem implausible to say that the Trump administration seems to be 'especially' extensive in their interrogation, no? |
