> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.nationalism.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.nationalism.io/should-migrants-receive-citizenship-and-political-membership.md). # Should migrants receive citizenship and political membership? A nation will need to think about how long migrants can reside in their country and whether those migrants should have a path to citizenship, voting rights and representation rights over a longer time period. Let’s consider the implications of giving migrants citizenship, voting rights and representation rights and the problems that might exist and whether these rights are necessary for migrants to live a fulfilling and productive life within another country over the long term. ## **Citizenship** Citizenship is the legal status of belonging to a particular country. It defines a person’s formal relationship with a state. Becoming a citizen will often mean receiving certain rights, duties and privileges such as: * **Rights** - To live, vote and work in the country whilst also receiving legal protection. * **Responsibilities** - Such as to obey laws, pay taxes and sometimes serve in the military or a jury. * **Identity & belonging** - Become an officially recognised member of the nation, commonly this will include a passport. * **Access to services** - Such as healthcare, education, public transport and welfare. These services aren’t always exclusively available to just citizens. **Potential problems** * **More difficult to reverse** - Generally the idea behind citizenship is it is supposed to be permanent. However citizenships can and do get revoked, a process that is called denaturalisation. Permanence could be problematic for migrants that receive citizenship as it suggests that it’s a one-way process that shouldn’t be reversed. This is even though group differences could emerge that become more problematic and disputed over time with the long-established ancestral population. * **Higher costs & capacity limitations** - Public services cost money to operate and public infrastructure is only able to handle a certain population size. A growing number of people being given citizenship could contribute towards putting a strain on the costs involved to operate certain services due to the volume of people and potentially due to the need to build more infrastructure to handle more capacity. * **Free-riding** - Citizens can be a net cost to the state if they use welfare and services more than they contribute in taxes. Migrants that receive citizenship could be contributing towards a growing burden on the state. * **Ancestral replacement** - Giving migrants citizenship means they can live in the country in perpetuity. Rates of immigration can be easy to control however emigration, reproduction and death are not easy to manage or influence. Large enough groups of migrants receiving citizenship could lead to fast changing demographics. In the long term this could even result in the replacement of the long-established ancestral groups that have originally lived in that country. * **Undesirable group differences** - Migrants that receive citizenship could come from a multitude of different backgrounds. These groups could have a number of differences with the long-established ancestral population. Giving migrants citizenship results in an environment where those group differences could become increasingly dominant over time due to changing demographics. The long-established ancestral population would need to accept that those differences could become the most dominant approach or way of life across the country if demographics continue to change. **Is it necessary for migrants?** Migrants do not require citizenship to live a fulfilling life in another country. Having equal treatment rights to use any essential services and infrastructure with equal opportunities to positions that are non-security-sensitive should often be sufficient for achieving this outcome. **Alternative approaches** Migrants could be offered different types of visas. One visa could be a perpetual visa that lets migrants stay in the country for as long as they want to be. Or you could just use long term visas such as 10 years in length. In either scenario, migrants would be able to live and work anywhere in the country and access all of the essential services they might need. Migrants do not require citizenship to be treated similarly or the same when using public services. If migrants have already made contributions to the state through taxation this could be sufficient rationale to provide them with free services for things like healthcare and education. The pre-requisite might be that they reached a certain threshold of contribution towards the economy. Once a certain amount of contribution is provided each year that could give them the free access to using public services in the following year based on the previous years contributions. A perpetual visa helps to resolve the potential problems that were highlighted above. If certain migrants become problematic due to group differences or the long-established ancestral population would now prefer to not live with them they can revoke their visas. If the cost of the migrants using public services is too high or there is evidence of free-riding they can update the arrangement of how visa holders are able to access those public services. If demographics were changing too rapidly and this was a growing concern to the long-established ancestral population they could stop any further visas from being issued and additionally revoke some of the existing ones if this was preferred. Some migrants will be reluctant to settle in another country if they can suddenly be removed. For example, imagine if someone had kids and how disruptive it would be to suddenly move them elsewhere. This problem can be minimised by giving a sufficient grace period for migrants to leave on the event of a visa being revoked. Visa holders could be given a fixed or variable number of years to move out of the country that is based on historical contributions. ## **Voting rights** Voting rights are the legal rights that enable people to vote in national elections. Democratic voting means that the population can choose their political leaders or make decisions about public issues. Voting rights give people a voice in government to influence things like laws and policies. **Potential problems** * **Different political preferences** - Migrants that come from other groups could have very different preferences around what types of ideologies and policies should be adopted within the country. Migrant groups can also have differences in work ethic and levels of general intelligence. All of these differences could influence the politics that they vote for and how much they rely on the state. These differences could create disputes and conflict with the long-established ancestral population that gave them those voting rights. * **Free-riding** - Migrants that receive voting rights could vote for political parties and leadership that gives them more welfare and public services at the expense of other contributing tax payers such as the long-established ancestral population. * **External influence & control** - Migrants could have close ties or external pressures from their home countries to influence or control the political system in a way that benefits themselves or their home nation. A simple example could be efforts that encourage those migrants with voting power to accept more migration from their country of origin. * **Loss of self-determination -** Migrants that receive voting rights will change the voting power demographics. If the migrant population grows over time the influence that the long-established ancestral population has over politics could decrease. If migrant voting power becomes a majority it becomes more difficult for the long-established ancestral population to reverse demographic change and to reliably protect their livelihoods and continuity as a distinct group. **Is it necessary for migrants?** Migrants do not require voting rights to live a fulfilling life in another country. It is also not a necessity that migrants are directly involved in selecting representatives in government or with influencing laws and policies. The most important thing that a migrant needs is access to any essential services and infrastructure. If a nation wants to attract migrants into their country it can benefit from offering equal treatment rights. Migrants can decide themselves which country offers them the best opportunities or lifestyle. Imagine a nation wants to invite migrants into the country and the migrants want to join because they like the opportunities available and the lifestyle. In this situation the migrant doesn’t need voting rights if they are joining because of the fact that they like the way of life of the population they are joining. Now imagine the migrant doesn’t like the way of life or political choices of the nation they are joining. Giving that migrant voting rights could more easily lead to disputes and conflict as they now would be able to vote for policies that completely change the nation to match their own preferences. Changes that the long-established ancestral population may not agree with. If the politics of the nation changes over time and a migrant no longer likes it they are free to move back to their country of origin or to another country. **Alternative approaches** It is possible for migrants to live a productive and fulfilling life in another country without voting rights. However this doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be able to vote on other important things such as local decisions. Migrants could be given the ability to participate in local decisions about public infrastructure or land usage, extra curricular activities in schools, priorities for hospital services or about pending public transportation changes. These are just some example topic areas. Migrants could also be asked to give their feedback on public services, that feedback could directly influence any changes that get made to those services. Migrants could vote in these types of local decisions and have a direct influence on how essential services and infrastructure are being operated. Not giving migrants voting power to influence the national government means you can reduce the potential problems that could emerge such as around different political preferences, free-riding, external influences and control and the potential loss of self determination for the long-established ancestral population. ## **Representation rights** Representation rights are the rights of people to elect individuals or political parties as representatives in government so that their views, needs and interests are listened to and taken into account during government decision making. **Potential problems** * **Favouritism** - Migrants that get elected to become a representative could have their own biases and preferences to support their own communities beyond what is fair and reasonable. This could influence certain policy decisions such as welfare, social housing and immigration. * **External ties & control** - Even 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation immigrants can have ties to external countries whether directly through friends and family or through their own preferences and sympathies towards what is happening in their country of origin. These ties or external influences could impact national diplomacy, foreign aid and military based decisions in a way that is not aligned with the preferences and priorities of the long-established ancestral population. * **Loss of self-determination** - If migrants receive voting rights and the nation’s demographics change over time it can be expected that you would eventually have more people that are elected into government that are representing the interests and preferences of the growing demographic majority. This reality around changing demographics is why long-established ancestral populations could have a reducing amount of influence in the political system if they give migrants representation rights and those individuals are then elected into a national government. **Is it necessary for migrants?** It is not essential for migrants to become representatives in government. Their needs and wants can still be considered by the national government. If the long-established ancestral population wants skilled migrants in their country they will need to appeal to them by creating an environment that provides a sufficiently fulfilling opportunity and lifestyle. Equal treatment rights and equal opportunities for positions that are non-security-sensitive can help with creating a fair and inviting environment for migrants to live. If migrants are being treated equally it is harder to argue that they require their own representation in the government as they are getting a similar or the same experience as citizens do. **Alternative approaches** There are a number of things that national governments could do to ensure the needs and preferences of migrants are taken into account. The first is feedback systems that enable migrants to suggest changes or improvements to the public services and infrastructure they rely on. Another is a prioritisation system so that the government is able to understand which issues are actually the most problematic for migrants at the moment so that they can be addressed more quickly. And finally migrants can have the autonomy to self organise and become representatives within their own local communities to handle things like how they access public infrastructure or for organising their own cultural and religious events.