
Ten million people around the world have no nationality - Turukawa
http://tracks.unhcr.org/2015/02/stateless-in-west-africa/
======
gnu8
Nationality is ultimately an obsolete concept. What rational basis is there
for people having varying rights and privileges based on what side of an
invisible line they currently reside on, or at what latitude and longitude on
planet earth they were born?

This is in no way an argument for anarchism. Political subdivisions are
necessary for representing the people within them and balancing their
interests against the other subdivisions. But there is no reason why any
person should be excluded from basic rights and privileges because they aren't
"owned" by any particular subdivision. Nothing could be less logical than
that.

~~~
Retric
Modern infrastructure (physical and social) can't handle massive population
migrations.

Consider a basic US example. City's deal with their homeless populations in
different ways, but if any city is overly generous it quickly gets swamped.
Further, cities can export their homeless by being overly draconian. Net
result, it’s basically impossible to deal with the homeless problem at the
local level.

Now, scale that up to 2 Billion poor people around the world.

PS: The tragedy of the commons applies to far more than just land. Closed
national borders allow for significant social progress which is otherwise
impossible as it would otherwise need to scale beyond what any country could
possibly support.

~~~
mortehu
> Modern infrastructure can't handle massive population migrations.

Even when migration is allowed, people don't just move to better off-areas en
masse. We see this with US states and countries in the Schengen Area. Somehow
even Greenfield, CA ($9,226 per capita per year) manages to exist less than
two hours from Palo Alto ($56,257 per capita per year).

I think the Schengen treaty approach of slowly adding new countries is a good
long-term strategy, and I think US should join it. The population of the
Schengen area is already 100M higher than the population of US, and there are
several cities there that have higher living standards than anywhere in the
US.

~~~
Retric
There are ~3.8 million Syrian Refugees the US has taken 335 of them.
[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/27/u-s-must-
sa...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/27/u-s-must-save-syria-s-
refugees.html#)

Turkey population ~75 million has accepted 1.5 million of them with ~200,000
more looking to enter the country.

For scale there are around 10 million illigal immigrants from Mexico. Picture
another 5 million showing up next year with zero notice.

~~~
mortehu
The Syrian refugees are there because their cities are being sieged, not
because they were seeking greener pastures. They're mostly in temporary camps,
so I wouldn't say they have migrated in the sense I was thinking of. They
would likely return home if the siege ended.

~~~
Retric
Would you say they are in temporary camps because _Modern infrastructure can
't handle massive population migrations?_

Don't get me wrong I think most countries could accept far more immigrants,
but the much of the world is a long way from what most HN are used to.
Consider, ethnic cleansing' is not just something that happened in WWII, it
far more common than people want to admit. Poverty, language, ethnicity, and
culture are real issues and complex issues.

PS: I think most people should read though every item on this list at least
once.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansings](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansings)
And then realize a lot of things did not make the cut.

~~~
guard-of-terra
I'm not sure "accepting immigrants" is the solution.

Okay, so you accept 5% of population, it doesn't help much the rest 95% of it.
And then you struggle to assimilate them and may become a warzone yourself.

~~~
harichinnan
Remittances are a big part of GDP for many countries. Rich countries taking in
more people would increase global GDP and help more than the 5% intake.
[http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
release/2014/04/11/re...](http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-
release/2014/04/11/remittances-developing-countries-deportations-migrant-
workers-wb)

------
aikah
Who forced the concept of nations upon Africans at first place? Who created
most Africans and middle Eastern countries? Sure Africans didn't, but Hélène,
France, your country sure did well by fucking up these places.Anybody can go
see a map. Countries with almost perfect linear shapes , putting tribes and
ethnical groups that have nothing to do with each others in the same country,
or putting the tribe in 2 different states. Then writing a blog post
complaining about how Africa is fucked up ?

Edit: and of course, most of the comments here have nothing to do with the
article, which is specifically about the situation in Africa. Nobody read it
obviously.

~~~
ptaipale
We can blame France (and others) for colonialism, and for the unnatural
borders that African nations have, but remember, the actual existence of
African nations is still due to the people there _wanting_ to have nations of
their own. In Africa, this process largely happened during 1950-1970.

No one "forced" the concept of nations upon Africans, except by setting an
example for what nation states can achieve. The time of colonialism was
largely the opposite of having nations. It was the nations that overthrew
colonialists.

~~~
guard-of-terra
They haven't got the choice of borders. They could only use colonial borders,
and those were counterproductive for a healthy nation.

Sure they wanted nation states, but they got crappy ones. And it could not go
much better. Their failure is rooted in past outside their political control.

~~~
ptaipale
Borders of nations can be changed by mutual agreement. Unfortunately the
national leaders of African nations have been willing to keep these arbitrary
borders, and much of the time only the other way is applied, i.e. war.

War is also how the European national borders have been decided. In the U.S.,
the state borders are remarkably similar to African borders: straight lines
along a particular meridian or circle of latitude. So is the Canadian border.

------
spiritplumber
almost 8 billion too few.

nations should be something you subscribe to, because you like their culture,
are willing to learn the local language, and so on.

beyond that, pay taxes to whatever community you live in (infrastructure use
fee).

~~~
MichaelGG
That's sorta like a lot of the "Hispanic" immigrant community in the US, isn't
it? Many still fiercely identify as their home country, etc., but end up
paying local US taxes. But if nationality enforced where they had to live,
nearly all of them would drop it to be a US national in a second.

~~~
mvc
I don't think that's unique to the Hispanic community. I'm from Scotland and
our tourism industry thrives on Americans who identify as Scottish or Irish
even after many generations have passed. I would imagine this is true for
Germany and Italy too.

------
RodericDay
We readily acknowledge the benefits of tearing down all the barriers for
capital to move between countries, but the ones for humans seem to be sticky.

~~~
cbd1984
Capital can't come bringing ebola or polio.

~~~
jfoutz
I don't understand your point. Didn't capital come with smallpox? Capital
intensive processes always come with unknowable risk. Coal power means coal
mines, which for some people means black lung. Air travel means death by plane
crashes. High voltage power lines mean death by electrocution.

Overall, we're better off - but it's silly to claim capital infusion is
automagically harmless. Again, perhaps this isn't the argument you're making.
Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean?

~~~
cbd1984
My point is, foreign investment can't make you sick, at least not directly.
People, on the other hand, can.

------
grecy
I've always wondered if it's possible to not be a resident of any country...
at least for tax purposes.

I do a lot of traveling, and my situation is a little unique. I have 2
citizenships and another permanent residency.

All three of those countries define you as a "resident for tax purposes" as
spending over 1/2 a year (usually > 180 days) physically in that country.

So what happens if I don't spend more than 1-2 months in _any_ country, and
all of those countries are not ones I have a permanent legal right to be in
i.e. I'm just passing through as a tourist.

What country am I a resident of if I keep that up? Last time I did it for 2
years, I'm planning to set off for at least 4 this time.

~~~
ChuckMcM
Yes it is, Jack Tramiel did it to avoid taxes. It helps if you are wealthy,
then you can arrange for an appointment to the UN and get a UN Passport[1].

[1] [https://info.undp.org/global/documents/hr/Guide-to-the-
Issua...](https://info.undp.org/global/documents/hr/Guide-to-the-Issuance-of-
UN-Travel-Documents.pdf)

------
sytse
I hope for a future where there are places that welcome these people, such as
Charter Cities
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city)

------
tokai
I know a guy who's a stateless refugee. He is the son of African nobility
exiled from a country/tribal-organization that wasn't recognized by the
colonial countries when they divided Africa.

He has to carry UN travel documents on his person at all time, stating his
situation. Its a pain in the bum to be stateless.

------
ArtDev
No nationality means no identity or rights at all.

I don't think any of us here knows what that means.

------
smackfu
Here's an interesting site if you want to read more about statelessness in
various countries:
[http://www.nationalityforall.org/regions](http://www.nationalityforall.org/regions)

------
Sevzi
Well, I have no race, so perhaps don't see this as big as a problem.

~~~
ArtDev
Let me guess, you have never been to a third-world country?

~~~
Sevzi
Sure--the one I share half my genes with.

