Legal Citizen Meaning

This definition allows us to broadly define our scope, focusing on both social inclusion and exclusion, while also being part of the field of citizenship. Breaking the link between settlement and citizenship represents a fundamental break with previous practice by trying to draw a “clear line” between those who have citizenship and those who do not. The growing distinction between citizens and non-citizens takes place in an era of “super-diversity” (Vertovec 2007), when migrants from many different countries move to the UK for very different reasons and length of stay. This may make a more flexible approach desirable and there is a risk that more and more people with extremely limited rights will emerge. The question of the relationship between formal citizenship and British identity, between belonging to the state and belonging to the “community”, will occupy the public debate for many years to come. Normally, a person who is in a country other than the one of which he is a citizen owes that country a kind of “temporary loyalty”, which is essentially respect for the laws of the host country, although it is not as important as the loyalty required of citizens. It requires a foreigner to observe the laws of the land and even serve in the military in some countries; It ensures the protection of the foreigner by the laws of the country. Neither the United States nor any state is citizens in the sense of diversity of citizenship, a term used in reference to the jurisdiction of federal courts, which, pursuant to Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution, empower those courts to hear and decide cases between citizens of different states. However, municipalities and other local authorities are considered citizens. The relationship between European citizenship and the ideals of cohesion, integration and equality remains unclear. In particular, the objectives of citizenship policy are not clearly defined, which contrasts sharply with immigration policy.

Nevertheless, there have been significant changes in the procedures for obtaining official citizenship, including the introduction of a number of tests. These are believed to promote citizenship and a sense of belonging, but there is also evidence that they make it more difficult to acquire citizenship, particularly for certain groups (Ryan, 2010). It seems that a number of often competing ideas about what citizenship is and why it should be valued are found in the acquisition process. These formal processes are not necessarily able to take into account all these ideas. This can have unintended consequences, not least because, far from attaching value to citizenship, it risks making the motivation for acquiring citizenship much more instrumental. It should already be noted that EEA nationals apply for citizenship less often than others. It is interesting to note that since EU enlargement, there has been a decline in applications for British citizenship from EU candidate countries in 2004, although the number of migrants from these countries has increased. Rutter et al.

conclude that it is because “it is in the United Kingdom that this group has the least restrictions on its rights of free movement and residence and social rights, i.e. the least `need` to apply for citizenship” (Rutter et al. 2008). The instrumentalization of citizenship contradicts the original political intention to elevate citizenship status and makes its acquisition more than a bureaucratic exercise. There is a significant legal disadvantage for a person who is not a citizen of a state. The Constitution states that federal courts “may hear controversies… between citizens of different States”. The term “citizens of various states” includes citizens of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands and Guam. Puerto Rico is in the first circuit, the Virgin Islands in the third circuit, and Guam, Alaska and Hawaii in the ninth circuit.

A person who is not a resident of a state or territory, even if they are a U.S. citizen, cannot satisfy the diversity citizenship requirement and therefore cannot file a claim under the diversity clause in federal court. A citizen is a participatory member of a political community. Citizenship is acquired by meeting the legal requirements of a national, state, or local government. A nation grants certain rights and privileges to its citizens. In return, citizens are expected to obey the laws of their country and defend it against its enemies. Is citizenship an end point, a reward for “integration,” in fact a personal benefit that allows an individual to claim a variety of rights? Or is it part of a process, a social good, that allows cohesion? Is citizenship an end in itself or a means to social cohesion? The obvious answer is that these are both an individual reward and a social good, but they have very different political implications. If citizenship is primarily a reward that allows access to resources, its limitation is part of what gives it value, while if it is above all a social good, it suggests that it is beneficial to allow the widest possible access to them.

While the current debate on citizenship has been based on cohesion concerns, in practice tests and other constraints have become obstacles to obtaining legal status rather than obstacles to integration.