Forum:Statelessness
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
There's a few hints here and there on RW on libertarian related pages about statelessness and how awesome it would be, and I was wondering if a page about how shitty statelessness is would fit with the mission of RW. In all honesty, I'm not sure how much cranky woo there is out there on this - my interest stems from studying statelessness in a legal context, specifically the UK government removing people's citizenship and making them stateless. But I'm sure I've heard plenty of libertarian and other woomeisters go on about how awesome being stateless is, which anyone with 2 minutes of research under their belt can tell you is a pile of bollocks. If there's support for a page on this, I'm happy to make a start on it, but I'm concerned that it doesn't really fit in RW. Thoughts? Pascal yuiop (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea. We touch on it at Somalia, but I think that's about it. Why not also add an entry at RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions]? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't that considered a human rights violation? Landmartian (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nope - the key word is "arbitrarily". The UK government is permitted to remove your British nationality if the Home Secretary considers that doing so would be "conducive to the public good". Yeah. Previously, this could only be done if you had another nationality to fall back on and wouldn't be left stateless, but the Immigration Act 2014 added another section that permits statelessness 1) if the person has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to vital UK interests and 2) they are able to acquire another nationality. 1) is just as dodgy a test as the existing one, and in practice, no 2 is never going to be satisfied. Anyway, legal rant over. The UK government can deprive people of their citizenship, many other countries do too. But statelessness is pretty shit. Anyway, what was I talking about? Pascal yuiop (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds interesting. Where would a stateless person be deported to? Antarctica? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- They don't seem to have considered that. The usual tactic is to wait until the person leaves the country (for a holiday or whatever) and then remove their citizenship so they can't come back in. Fine if they have another nationality like in the past, but if you've made them stateless, the host country isn't obliged to accept them like second hand clothes. They would get sent back here. And if they're in this country (which is a minority, but still a problem) then you're right, there is literally nowhere to send them. Even if they originally came from, say, India, India would have no obligation to admit a stateless person into the country so they can attempt to gain nationality. Further, what countries are going to be keen on accepting a person who the UK has stripped of their citizenship on the grounds that they are involved in terrorism, which is usually the allegation? The only country that would let them in is a country where we wouldn't want them to be. Pascal yuiop (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- What I don't get is why unwanted people get deported to the country they were trying to get away from. They're obviously gonna try to get away from it again. Why even waste airplane fuel on that? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- the host country isn't obliged to accept them ...They would get sent back here.
- Easier said then done. If the UK denies them citizenship, they have no right to return. And I'm not certain the host country can force them to take somebody back. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 22:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- The host country allowed their entry on the basis of their British passport and they therefore have the right to deport him back to the country that issued that passport i.e. Britain. Fairly uncontroversial, but overlooked by the politicians. EDIT - I should say, this relates to when a person is in another country when their British citizenship is removed. If they are in the UK at the time, then you would be unable to deport them to another country because a) now they have no passport and b) no other country is obliged to allow the entry of stateless people, or anyone for that matter that isn't one of their nationals. Pascal yuiop (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ir's not like a person's without choices, a person could convert to Islam and move to the Islamic State; I think this may be true for converts to Judaism and Zionism as well, but I'm not sure. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 01:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- 1) Forced conversion? In this day and age? Also, IS is not a country under international law and therefore you can't deport someone there. Also, it's a SUPER good idea to send someone we think is heavily involved in terrorism TO the mardi gras of terrorism [/sarcasm]. 2) Israel's policy isn't just "be jewish and we'll let you in". Their law states that they can refuse entry even to Jews if the person (1) is engaged in an activity directed against the Jewish people; or (2) is likely to endanger public health or the security of the State. All UK deprivations have been on the basis of national security, so how likely is it that Israel will agree to let the person in? And anyway, what if the person has zero connection to Israel and has no desire to settle there? Even then, you wouldn't acquire citizenship immediately on arriving in Israel, you would still have to apply and Israel could still turn you down - the vast majority of countries have a "good character" requirement for gaining citizenship. Pascal yuiop (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ir's not like a person's without choices, a person could convert to Islam and move to the Islamic State; I think this may be true for converts to Judaism and Zionism as well, but I'm not sure. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 01:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- The host country allowed their entry on the basis of their British passport and they therefore have the right to deport him back to the country that issued that passport i.e. Britain. Fairly uncontroversial, but overlooked by the politicians. EDIT - I should say, this relates to when a person is in another country when their British citizenship is removed. If they are in the UK at the time, then you would be unable to deport them to another country because a) now they have no passport and b) no other country is obliged to allow the entry of stateless people, or anyone for that matter that isn't one of their nationals. Pascal yuiop (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Easier said then done. If the UK denies them citizenship, they have no right to return. And I'm not certain the host country can force them to take somebody back. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 22:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- the host country isn't obliged to accept them ...They would get sent back here.
- What I don't get is why unwanted people get deported to the country they were trying to get away from. They're obviously gonna try to get away from it again. Why even waste airplane fuel on that? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- They don't seem to have considered that. The usual tactic is to wait until the person leaves the country (for a holiday or whatever) and then remove their citizenship so they can't come back in. Fine if they have another nationality like in the past, but if you've made them stateless, the host country isn't obliged to accept them like second hand clothes. They would get sent back here. And if they're in this country (which is a minority, but still a problem) then you're right, there is literally nowhere to send them. Even if they originally came from, say, India, India would have no obligation to admit a stateless person into the country so they can attempt to gain nationality. Further, what countries are going to be keen on accepting a person who the UK has stripped of their citizenship on the grounds that they are involved in terrorism, which is usually the allegation? The only country that would let them in is a country where we wouldn't want them to be. Pascal yuiop (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds interesting. Where would a stateless person be deported to? Antarctica? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nope - the key word is "arbitrarily". The UK government is permitted to remove your British nationality if the Home Secretary considers that doing so would be "conducive to the public good". Yeah. Previously, this could only be done if you had another nationality to fall back on and wouldn't be left stateless, but the Immigration Act 2014 added another section that permits statelessness 1) if the person has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to vital UK interests and 2) they are able to acquire another nationality. 1) is just as dodgy a test as the existing one, and in practice, no 2 is never going to be satisfied. Anyway, legal rant over. The UK government can deprive people of their citizenship, many other countries do too. But statelessness is pretty shit. Anyway, what was I talking about? Pascal yuiop (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- On an even darker side of things, the Dominican government left around a million people stateless when it ruled that Dominican children borne of Haitian parents are not Dominican citizens based on an obscure interpretation of an even more obscure law from 1920 still on the books. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 20:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, obviously the main thrust of the article would be statelessness in general. First move by dictators to persecute a minority is usually to take away their nationality - Hitler and the Jews, obvious example. Also lots of people get left stateless because children don't get registered or the system is shoddy and migrants fall through the gaps or even just that countries break up (like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) and the nationality issues aren't sorted out properly and people get left stateless. Loads of angles to look at, and its pretty horrible being stateless. Hannah Arendt famously described nationality as "the right to have rights". Pascal yuiop (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Guantanamo is relevant. Many (most?) detainees are stateless, either legally or de facto. They can't be convicted (lack of evidence in most cases), released (not US citizens or legal immigrants) or deported (their home countries won't allow them back), so they're just held indefinitely. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Guantanamo is relevant. Many (most?) detainees are stateless, either legally or de facto. They can't be convicted (lack of evidence in most cases), released (not US citizens or legal immigrants) or deported (their home countries won't allow them back), so they're just held indefinitely. ωεαşεζøίɗ
- Yeah, obviously the main thrust of the article would be statelessness in general. First move by dictators to persecute a minority is usually to take away their nationality - Hitler and the Jews, obvious example. Also lots of people get left stateless because children don't get registered or the system is shoddy and migrants fall through the gaps or even just that countries break up (like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) and the nationality issues aren't sorted out properly and people get left stateless. Loads of angles to look at, and its pretty horrible being stateless. Hannah Arendt famously described nationality as "the right to have rights". Pascal yuiop (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Statelessness "and how great" it would be? Tell that to this guy
. Alsto003 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Alex
Be careful not to conflate different concepts of statelessness. When libertarians (or anarchists) talk about "statelessness and how awesome it would be", they're talking about the ideal of a stateless world: a utopia where there's no government, no taxes, no laws, no borders, etc. Whether or not that's practical or desirable is another question, but it's a completely different kettle of fish from the experience of individuals who are left stateless in a world where governments, laws, borders and citizenship are a big deal. Wëäŝëïöïď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Years ago I read a memoir by an American guy who fled to Canada to avoid the Vietnam draft, and then, with the wisdom of an 18-year-old, renounced his US citizenship to protest the war before thinking about how Canada won't just bestow citizenship on an undocumented migrant. So even after Carter's amnesty, it was years before he could go home; he missed his mother's funeral and other key life events because he was stateless and could not cross the border. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps the oddest story I've heard is that of David Hicks. He was an Australian who found himself in Gitmo and he noticed that British citizens had a much better chance of being released than others, and lo and behold he was able to claim British citizenship via his mother. There was a big stink in the UK about this, but in the end the government agreed that he was legally entitled to british citizenship. One day, David received two letters - the first congratulated him on acquiring British citizenship and the second saying that he had been deprived of his citizenship. Pretty dark really. Pascal yuiop (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Since it's about two things, it should probably be written about in two places. First in Statelessness, when governments remove citizens' rights to make oppression easier. Second in Statism, to talk about why statism is at least better than the alternative. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable. I would only feel comfortable working on the former, as it is what I've studied, and leave the libertarian stuff to someone else. Pascal yuiop (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)