Are there any countries with literal second class citizens?

[John_Mace]

@ftg

Of course this is a classic way for people do deny the existence of second class citizens. By saying they aren’t citizens in the first place, then their basic citizen rights can be denied from the get-go. Lots of countries have pulled this scam over the years.

In the case of many Japanese of Korean descent, it’s even more ridiculous since their pre-war immigrant ancestors were considered Japanese subjects. So they should have Japanese citizenship by descent and by birthplace.

That might be an interesting point to raise in a GD thread about who should and who should not be a citizen of a given country, but the OP is asking about literal second class citizens, so they still don’t count.

[Dr.Drake]

What about children? They are certainly citizens whose rights and responsibilities are limited. For good reason, mind you, but they should still count.

[Namkcalb]

What about Britain?

Most people have British Citizenship, but some people from former colonies(Hong Kong and perhaps other places) have been offered “British Citizenship Overseas”, basically giving them all the rights of a citizen, except for the automatic right to live and work in the island of Great Britain

This is a de jure case of Second-class citizens.

[the_diego]

Filipino immigrants to the US with Philippine diplomas?

[Isamu]

@ftg

Of course this is a classic way for people do deny the existence of second class citizens. By saying they aren’t citizens in the first place, then their basic citizen rights can be denied from the get-go. Lots of countries have pulled this scam over the years.

It’s not a scam. Every country is free to make their own rules as to who qualifies to be a citizen and who doesn’t qualify. That’s just the current state of our world.

In the case of Japan, it doesn’t grant citizenship to people simply by virtue of being born in Japan. Not even if that child’s parents were also born in Japan. Not even if four generations before them have lived and died in Japan.

Other countries have different laws about citizenship.

@ftg

In the case of many Japanese of Korean descent, it’s even more ridiculous since their pre-war immigrant ancestors were considered Japanese subjects. So they should have Japanese citizenship by descent and by birthplace.

Yes, they were considered Japanese subjects. But I’m not really sure if that means they were considered ‘citizens’. Each district in Japan has long maintained a registry of where each of its individual residents came from. It wouldn’t have been too hard during WW2 to uncover someone’s place of origin.

You also have to remember that this all happened before Japan had a constitution that delineated certain rights of ‘citizens’.

And you should also know that the excuse Japanese people give about why Zainichi (i.e., Koreans born in Japan) are not given automatic citizenship is because of the Americans.

Yes, that’s right, you are to blame. The Japanese claim that the San Fransisco Treaty they were forced to sign at the end of WW2 means that they had to give up claim to all captured territories and subject peoples. That included the Koreans they captured and brought to Japan to put to work. So all those people who were once Japanese, are now not Japanese, because of you Americans.

One thing about this that bugs me. If they were ever really considered Japanese wouldn’t there be any record to show that?

[ftg]

@Isamu

It’s not a scam. Every country is free to make their own rules as to who qualifies to be a citizen and who doesn’t qualify. That’s just the current state of our world.

Any country is free to implement a law allowing slavery but declaring slaves to not be humans so it’s not technically slavery as well.

No reasonable person would buy such a gambit. Countries that deprive their own citizens of their basic rights by merely labeling them non-citizens is just another version of this.

It’s disgusting in either case.

[ed_anger]

@Isamu

It’s not a scam. Every country is free to make their own rules as to who qualifies to be a citizen and who doesn’t qualify. That’s just the current state of our world.

In the case of Japan, it doesn’t grant citizenship to people simply by virtue of being born in Japan. Not even if that child’s parents were also born in Japan. Not even if four generations before them have lived and died in Japan.

Other countries have different laws about citizenship.

Yes, they were considered Japanese subjects. But I’m not really sure if that means they were considered ‘citizens’. Each district in Japan has long maintained a registry of where each of its individual residents came from. It wouldn’t have been too hard during WW2 to uncover someone’s place of origin.

You also have to remember that this all happened before Japan had a constitution that delineated certain rights of ‘citizens’.

And you should also know that the excuse Japanese people give about why Zainichi (i.e., Koreans born in Japan) are not given automatic citizenship is because of the Americans.

Yes, that’s right, you are to blame. The Japanese claim that the San Fransisco Treaty they were forced to sign at the end of WW2 means that they had to give up claim to all captured territories and subject peoples. That included the Koreans they captured and brought to Japan to put to work. So all those people who were once Japanese, are now not Japanese, because of you Americans.

One thing about this that bugs me. If they were ever really considered Japanese wouldn’t there be any record to show that?

Are you really defending what would be considered extreme racism anywhere else? “Not even if four generations before them have lived and died in Japan.” Kind of the definition of treating people as second-class citizens right there.

[Throatwarbler_Mangrove]

Yeah, claiming that citizens who are de facto citizens aren’t is pretty much textbook.

The Chinese system of household registration is widely misunderstood by casual observers outside of China and is really not a de jure (Jesus who the fuck actually uses these terms outside of shitty internet debates?) system of second class citizenship.

[MandaJo]

@ftg

Any country is free to implement a law allowing slavery but declaring slaves to not be humans so it’s not technically slavery as well.

No reasonable person would buy such a gambit. Countries that deprive their own citizens of their basic rights by merely labeling them non-citizens is just another version of this.

It’s disgusting in either case.

I agree with this. I think a useful test would be whether or not those individuals have a claim to citizenship anywhere else. I mean, I can understand not extending citizenship to the children of temporary residents, but those children presumably can derive citizenship from their parent’s home country. But a fourth-generation person has no alternate citizenship: their sole legal residence is the country they live in, and if they are disenfranchised or otherwise denied rights that are considered the basic birthright of “citizens”, then I think they are textbook second-class citizens.

I mean, by that definition, free blacks in the American South were not second-class citizens until the 14th amendment passed, since Dred Scott declared them not citizens.

[rogerbox]

Baha’is are not allowed to go to university or get business liscenses, or talk openly about their faith in Iran.

[rogerbox]

@the_diego

Filipino immigrants to the US with Philippine diplomas?

Please.

[the_diego]

^
Knew you’d agree.

[rogerbox]

@the_diego

^
Knew you’d agree.

I don’t. Filipino degrees might be considered worth less here than there, but even so they would be lumped in with Americans with a degree from a non-prestigious school or no degree at all (I don’t have one). There is nothing special about filipino treatment in the US one way or the other, and seriously proposing PI educated pinoys in the US are some special second class of citizen is a joke and dilutes the discussion of the thread down to everyone who isn’t a height weight proportionate ivy-league WASP in the USA.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

@ftg

Any country is free to implement a law allowing slavery but declaring slaves to not be humans so it’s not technically slavery as well…

Many countries have agreed to not to have slavery of any kind by ratifying this treaty: Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery - Wikipedia

[bump]

@Isamu

Yes, that’s right, you are to blame. The Japanese claim that the San Fransisco Treaty they were forced to sign at the end of WW2 means that they had to give up claim to all captured territories and subject peoples. That included the Koreans they captured and brought to Japan to put to work. So all those people who were once Japanese, are now not Japanese, because of you Americans.

Next thing, you’re going to tell us that Pearl Harbor was our own fault. Sheesh.

[Koxinga]

@bump

Next thing, you’re going to tell us that Pearl Harbor was our own fault. Sheesh.

Well, we were such meanies in imposing an oil embargo, after all. How can an innocent little empire keep its decade-long land war in Asia going if we obstinately refuse to sell it oil, huh?

[cckerberos]

@Isamu

And you should also know that the excuse Japanese people give about why Zainichi (i.e., Koreans born in Japan) are not given automatic citizenship is because of the Americans.

Yes, that’s right, you are to blame. The Japanese claim that the San Fransisco Treaty they were forced to sign at the end of WW2 means that they had to give up claim to all captured territories and subject peoples. That included the Koreans they captured and brought to Japan to put to work. So all those people who were once Japanese, are now not Japanese, because of you Americans.

They’re not completely wrong. It’s obviously absurd to suggest that the Zainichi would have gotten citizenship “if not for the US…”, but the question of former colonial subjects in Japan is something that could and should have been addressed by SCAP and the US occupation. If anyone is interested in this topic, I recommend they read Trans-Pacific Racisms and the US Occupation of Japan by Yukiko Koshiro which describes how the US occupiers intentionally punted on the issue (and in fact regarded those Koreans who chose to remain in Japan as troublemakers and an unwanted complication) and racial questions in general. The Treaty of Versailles explicitly dealt with the issue of former subjects and the San Francisco Peace Treaty should have done the same, rather than leaving the minorities in a legal limbo.

TLDR; we were in charge after the war and so yes, we’re have to take a fair share of the blame for how things turned out.

@ftg

Countries that deprive their own citizens of their basic rights by merely labeling them non-citizens is just another version of this.

Is there some kind of extralegal definition of citizenship? You seem to be suggesting that citizenship is a natural state rather than a legal construct. Is the status of any non-citizen permanent resident inherently unjust?

[Koxinga]

@cckerberos

Is there some kind of extralegal definition of citizenship? You seem to be suggesting that citizenship is a natural state rather than a legal construct. Is the status of any non-citizen permanent resident inherently unjust?

I dunno, why don’t you ask Dredd Scott?

[cckerberos]

@Koxinga

I dunno, why don’t you ask Dredd Scott?

Cute. Got an actual answer that suggests how to differentiate between slaves and green card holders?

[Koxinga]

As soon as you can tell me how a fourth-generation ethnic Korean living in Japan, whose ancestors were likely brought over as literal slaves, is in any way analogous to a green card holder.