Is it just me, or does "being a citizen," feel increasingly archaic as time goes on? The idea is still deeply embedded in society and government, and passports still speak volumes (insofar that they're valued differently), but citizenship seems more of a formality. Some are very tied to their countries of origin, but there seems to be a growing trend to simply follow the wealth--whether it be money, standard of living, etc.
If holding additional citizenship becomes a burden, people simply drop it.
I just became a US citizen after living in the country for 23 years. For me, the notion isn't archaic at all. I was a permanent resident for some time. The US could revoke my residency if I spent more than six months consecutively outside the USA.
I do think many people think the term is becoming archaic. For people who live and call a country which they are not citizen in their home, it's definitely not archaic. Becoming a US citizen was one of the most important days of my life.
Doesn't your experience prove the parent's point? For 23 years you've been a productive law-abiding member of society but were stripped of rights just because you are an "alien". Now that you have joined the club you can support similar treatment of others.
I still think it's archaic to discriminate that way against citizens of other countries. (the best part being Americans calling them "non-citizen", exposing either some prejudice or some ignorance or both)
I have not been to many english speaking countries. I travel a bit, but mostly around Europe, and I have mostly seen signs about the nationality of the passport you're using more than the citizenship of the people (because there can be more than one).
Nationality versus citizenship are not really understood by Anglophones, in my experience. Ethnicity versus citizenship would be closer to the way we speak.
Read the fine print. You don't have any real rights to your permanent residency. The USA can decide not to renew it for any reason they deem fit.
Also, laws may change in the future that further restrict the entitlements permanent residents have. Permanent residents can be deported. I've been subject to extra screening in customs.
There's a lot of reasons to be a US citizen if you're planning on staying in this country for life.
When I was young and experimentally idealistic I felt the same way. Thinking of myself as a world citizne, I phoned up the local branch of the UN and asked how I get a UN passport. The very aptient lady on the other end explained that governments hate people without citizenship because they think they might get stuck owing them something, and that UN passports were only issued to refugees who had lost everything, and even then the main function was not to admit them to places, but to have a document that could be associated with an exit date to ensure some transited out of a country.
I still think citizenship ought to be something you choose but in reality it is usually something that happens to you, based on where you emerged into the world and what citizenship your parents hold. This is not going to change for the foreseeable future.
I'm afraid we are drifting backwards: a new cold war is looming and, if we are unlucky, it can turn into a hot one, and it's suddenly going to become quite important what citizenship you have (and where you live).
Is it just me, or does "being a citizen," feel increasingly archaic as time goes on
When times are good it might, but just ask Americans who were in Liberia or Sierra Lione recently, or who were in Georgia in 2007, or who were in Ukraine until this year. Citizenship doesn't matter until it really, really matters. In Israel there are increasingly stories about families wondering about whether getting or attempting to get a second citizenship is a form of cowardice or a pragmatic acknowledgement of events on the ground.
Let me reiterate that moving towards a safer and more developed world in which citizenship doesn't matter much is great and I hope we do it. But that progress is not guaranteed and is not universal.
When times are good it might, but just ask Americans who were in Liberia or Sierra Lione recently
They would probably tell you that the US State Department charges people for being rescued rather than doing it for free like other governments, and that the bill has a habit of being absurdly large and in some cases (like evacuation via aircraft carrier) can result in bankruptcy and people wishing they had not been rescued.
Departure assistance is expensive. U.S. law 22 U.S.C. 2671(b) (2) (A) requires that any departure assistance be provided "on a reimbursable basis to the maximum extent practicable.” This means that evacuation costs are ultimately your responsibility; you will be asked to sign a form promising to repay the U.S. government. We charge you the equivalent of a full coach commercial fare on a comparable mode of transportation at the time that commercial travel ceases to be a viable option. You will be taken to a nearby safe location, where you will need to make your own onward travel arrangements. Typically, you will not have an opportunity to select the destination to which we will take you; it will be to the nearest safe location (only in rare circumstances will that be to the United States). If you are destitute, and private resources are not available to cover the cost of onward travel, you may be eligible for emergency financial assistance.
As far as I can tell once you leave US borders, unless you intend to return permanently one day there are no benefits to being a US citizen and lots of downsides.
By the way one thing I keep reading about re: FATCA is that the State Dept seems to be underreporting the numbers of people who are giving up citizenship.
It really depends on where you are born.As an american,you can move almost freely across the world.That's not the case if you're born in some god forsaken place in Africa for instance.Being born in the "right place" is definitely a privilege.Trust me.
> but there seems to be a growing trend to simply follow the wealth--whether it be money, standard of living, etc.
It has always been that way.There's nothing new about that.People have been moving where there are better opportunities for centuries.
Hardly a formality for citizens of countries that aren't any fun to live in and aren't easy to leave. Ask a Syrian or a North Korean if citizenship is a formality.
Is following wealth internationally a particularly new trend? Nearly all of America's population is descended from immigrants who came chasing money and/or standard of living.
It matters if you want to participate in democracy by voting. Many (most?) places you can't even vote for your town's major or school board without a national citizenship.
I think you live in a fairly unique situation if you consider citizenship becoming old fashioned. With all the speak about globalization, shifting ones recidence from country to country is not something people generally engage in often. Family, work and living permits, cultural background, language - these are still quite real limitations to most. It's probably a bit different with top experts but by definition most are not...
If holding additional citizenship becomes a burden, people simply drop it.