Immigrants in most countries are required to pledge allegiance to their adopted country to become exempt from deportation (aka: Attaining Citizenship Status); What do you think of this practice?
-
Basically: In some countries, the pledge is with the constitution or the people, but in others (like constitutional monarchies), its a pledge to the (constitutional) monarch and their successors.
What is your opinion on this loyalty pledge? Do you believe it's a reasonable request?
(For context: My mother and older brother had to do the pledge to gain [US] citizenship so the idea of deportation isn't looming over our heads. I didn't have do it because I was under 18 and my mother's citizenship status automatically carried over to me according to the law.)
You said most countries but then only mention the USA. May I surmise you're from the USA aka the world?
So I got curious, but it's also 7am and I need to sleep. I looked it up for my own country: we don't exactly have this
The Netherlands basically requires you to acknowledge that its laws apply to you (they do when you set foot here anyway) and that you'll fulfill the duties that come with citizenship.
When opening the included FAQ item "what duties?" it says two things: you abide by the laws (duh) and that you should consider that you're part of this society and that "you'll do what is needed to really be part of this society." Handwavey and not about choosing a side in a war or something, just focused on integration and community. Seems okay to me and distinct from blind allegiance. There's some more details but the FAQs all circle back to respecting the other citizens (no discrimination) and the like -
Basically: In some countries, the pledge is with the constitution or the people, but in others (like constitutional monarchies), its a pledge to the (constitutional) monarch and their successors.
What is your opinion on this loyalty pledge? Do you believe it's a reasonable request?
(For context: My mother and older brother had to do the pledge to gain [US] citizenship so the idea of deportation isn't looming over our heads. I didn't have do it because I was under 18 and my mother's citizenship status automatically carried over to me according to the law.)
Do most countries require a pledge? Mine didn't when I got my citizenship.
-
That's like saying it's not a big ask to become a part of some random family.
What OP meant is that it's not a big ask to be loyal to the country you're becoming citizen of.
Following your analogy, it wouldn't be a big ask for a family adopting you that you swear to protect the interests of said family (health, wealth, well-being, affection and safety).
If the smoke alarm starts beeping and you run away from the family house without even looking back and making any attempts to make sure that everyone got out safely, then you wouldn't be a good family member.
-
unconditional
I mean it is conditional.
I see it as a "social contract". The state/society gives me a status and certain protections, in exchange for me promising not to be a terrorist, spy, etc... that's essentially what I see it as.
If the state/society start treating me like some foreigner, then I'd consider them violating their "end of the bargain", aka: it's them violating the social contract and I'd act accordingly.
If they pull the Japanese-American "Internment Camp" bullshit on me, don't expect me to have any "allegiance" lmao
As an example: PRC tried to "terminate" me for being the second-born, because they wanted to fullfill their fantasy of a "birth control" and forced sterilization policy, and also they tried to deny giving the legal papers proving I exist until their BS "fines" got paid (meaning, essentially: I didn't legally "exist" for the first few years of my life), not to mention, the various fucked up things regarding censorship, cant even playing a fucking online game, so yea I have zero "allegiance" with the PRC. In fact, I dispise PRC.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yeah, in that situation it's more demanded than unconditional. You're right, there's a social contract, but pledges of fealty are passe in most relationships. Like, if it was an employer or something, it's generally accepted that they'll earn your loyalty by compensating you for your work and not abusing you, and maybe through the nature of their vision. There is a whole other layer of security clearance when something is very sensitive.
Unconditional patriotism is what natural-born Americans are expected to have. Loving your country and all the boo-rah, 4th of July shit is a form of virtue in and of itself. That even extends to blindly holding beliefs about things which should really be measured objectively. Canada has it's problems, but we've managed to avoid that one a bit more (so pardon the punching outwards).
-
In the US, children are made to participate in the pledge of allegiance daily at school. To answer your question more broadly, in many cases, if a citizen commits certain crimes against a country, then it is considered treason. Maybe it's considered that a citizen born in the country understands that, but someone naturalising must acknowledge it.
Espionage also carries heavy sentences, and everyone knows you can be prosecuted for plotting a coup or whatever.
In the US, children are made to participate in the pledge of allegiance daily at school.
By OP's logic, then, that's good, and if they refuse they should become a non-citizen.
A spoken oath is a pretty ineffective enforcement mechanism, for what it's worth.
-
Basically: In some countries, the pledge is with the constitution or the people, but in others (like constitutional monarchies), its a pledge to the (constitutional) monarch and their successors.
What is your opinion on this loyalty pledge? Do you believe it's a reasonable request?
(For context: My mother and older brother had to do the pledge to gain [US] citizenship so the idea of deportation isn't looming over our heads. I didn't have do it because I was under 18 and my mother's citizenship status automatically carried over to me according to the law.)
Every nation has a ruling hierarchy, and it's important for those at the bottom to swear fealty to those at the top.
-
You said most countries but then only mention the USA. May I surmise you're from the USA aka the world?
So I got curious, but it's also 7am and I need to sleep. I looked it up for my own country: we don't exactly have this
The Netherlands basically requires you to acknowledge that its laws apply to you (they do when you set foot here anyway) and that you'll fulfill the duties that come with citizenship.
When opening the included FAQ item "what duties?" it says two things: you abide by the laws (duh) and that you should consider that you're part of this society and that "you'll do what is needed to really be part of this society." Handwavey and not about choosing a side in a war or something, just focused on integration and community. Seems okay to me and distinct from blind allegiance. There's some more details but the FAQs all circle back to respecting the other citizens (no discrimination) and the likeWhy does the netherlands do so many things well and seem completly bored talking about lol
That seems like a great implentation to me. Basically an explicit acknowledgement of the sociol contract
-
Why does the netherlands do so many things well and seem completly bored talking about lol
That seems like a great implentation to me. Basically an explicit acknowledgement of the sociol contract
Why does the netherlands do so many things well
I'm really curious about this also! What makes some nations be, ehm, in a "sensible" state (in my eyes) and others not, given similar situations and options? We're by no means as cool as Iceland or Finland for example, eyeing metrics like happiness index and development index, but why not?
Being a small population and/or region seems to be a part of the success mix (my theory is that this makes the government be closer to the people as well as forcing trade since you're clearly better off working together than trying to navigate international politics alone), but there's plenty of counter-examples so it's clearly either not the only requirement or flat-out wrong. I tried reading a book on the topic but then the book doesn't adequately explain it either ^^ It seems to be an unsolved problem as of yet
Either way, despite the current government I guess I'm proud of the place I'm from. You get to decide your own life (factors including: people are multilingual, relatively low inequality, euthanasia available (not that I'd currently want to, but self-determination just seems like a good principle that a crazy number of countries don't yet have)), though iirc the rich are getting richer and both rich and poor citizens are currently voting to widen that gap (as well as other short- and long-term issues, strawman problems.. the usual). We'll see where we stand in 100 years. Maybe I shouldn't be proud, since all that I'm proud of was built by my forebears (particularly before privatisation, which has its pros but maybe not for every aspect of society) and it's my generation that has yet to stand the test of time
aanyway, I didn't get this part:
and seem completly bored talking about lol
Could you elaborate or rephrase?
-
Why does the netherlands do so many things well
I'm really curious about this also! What makes some nations be, ehm, in a "sensible" state (in my eyes) and others not, given similar situations and options? We're by no means as cool as Iceland or Finland for example, eyeing metrics like happiness index and development index, but why not?
Being a small population and/or region seems to be a part of the success mix (my theory is that this makes the government be closer to the people as well as forcing trade since you're clearly better off working together than trying to navigate international politics alone), but there's plenty of counter-examples so it's clearly either not the only requirement or flat-out wrong. I tried reading a book on the topic but then the book doesn't adequately explain it either ^^ It seems to be an unsolved problem as of yet
Either way, despite the current government I guess I'm proud of the place I'm from. You get to decide your own life (factors including: people are multilingual, relatively low inequality, euthanasia available (not that I'd currently want to, but self-determination just seems like a good principle that a crazy number of countries don't yet have)), though iirc the rich are getting richer and both rich and poor citizens are currently voting to widen that gap (as well as other short- and long-term issues, strawman problems.. the usual). We'll see where we stand in 100 years. Maybe I shouldn't be proud, since all that I'm proud of was built by my forebears (particularly before privatisation, which has its pros but maybe not for every aspect of society) and it's my generation that has yet to stand the test of time
aanyway, I didn't get this part:
and seem completly bored talking about lol
Could you elaborate or rephrase?
The phrase that triggered my "completly board talking about" was right after saying a setup i see as awesome you say "which seems ok to me". This also seems inline with other dutch political takes ive seen, from bikes to red light districts to work place norms, where i see what would be a hotly talked about topic (both support and opposition) here in the US for me, is largely plainly talked about.
I cant say its wrong, as i seem to agree with coorolated polices, but it just seems in stark contrast to the American tendency to make this higher stakes and more exciting.
The closer government is something that makes alot of sense to me too. I find municple, town, county level politics much more grounded then my federal level decisions (which is more like EU scoped politics to me in comparison at about half the population but about the same land mass). State level, which an average of almost 6 million being represented by the goverment vs the 350 million the fed size has to represent, also seems more reasonable though in terms of action very limited.
I know one reform here id like is to expand the number of federal representives here to be scaled with population again. It was orginally scaled at 1 for every 30 thousand (which feels like a human scale of representation), but including our upper house its around 750,000 per elected member of congress.
-
The phrase that triggered my "completly board talking about" was right after saying a setup i see as awesome you say "which seems ok to me". This also seems inline with other dutch political takes ive seen, from bikes to red light districts to work place norms, where i see what would be a hotly talked about topic (both support and opposition) here in the US for me, is largely plainly talked about.
I cant say its wrong, as i seem to agree with coorolated polices, but it just seems in stark contrast to the American tendency to make this higher stakes and more exciting.
The closer government is something that makes alot of sense to me too. I find municple, town, county level politics much more grounded then my federal level decisions (which is more like EU scoped politics to me in comparison at about half the population but about the same land mass). State level, which an average of almost 6 million being represented by the goverment vs the 350 million the fed size has to represent, also seems more reasonable though in terms of action very limited.
I know one reform here id like is to expand the number of federal representives here to be scaled with population again. It was orginally scaled at 1 for every 30 thousand (which feels like a human scale of representation), but including our upper house its around 750,000 per elected member of congress.
Thanks, right, that makes sense!
I don't know that it's not a coincidence that this wasn't hotly debated btw. There's other debates that I don't hear from elsewhere, like nitrogen emissions. I barely know the words in english but de 'stikstofcrisis' has been a thing for about as long as I'm allowed to vote. Someone figured out that it harms nature and so a cap was put in place, then someone else did the math and figured out we're way over that limit (mainly due to insane cattle numbers for the country's size, iirc), and now any sector emitting nitrogen has permit issues, such as building living space for the growing population. Why is it growing despite low birth rates? "The foreigners!" See, we can blame everything on immigration
(sadly I feel the need to clarify that this last sentence is not serious)Sorry that I'm not responding to basically anything else you said. I don't have much of an idea about things like representation scales but what you said all sounds sensible. Perhaps I could add that the EU, until this year's "think of the children" fad (first ubiquitous age verification, then chatcontrol), has made mostly sensible proposals so far as I heard of them, but then it's not really acting in the same way as the US federal government so it may not be a good comparison. Maybe they were doing alright because they didn't think of themselves as the parent who's calling the shots, but rather a collaboration system of sovereign countries? Who knows
