Category: Citizenship

This paper is a sincere attempt to review the outcome of various research studies carried out by media houses in India to track down the level of global citizenship and sustainable development. The purpose of this paper is to make people informed about the power of media that how media can become a catalyst in building sustainable and peaceful society. The objective of sustainable development is interlinked with sustainable society and global citizenship. Undoubtedly, media in all forms act as a vital cog in developmental agendas of government and it also ensures citizens’ about the latest developments in nation. The extended role of media is to disseminate and impart education about sustainable living which is essential for Homo sapiens. The scope of sustainable development is dynamic as it changes according to the SDG of particular nation.

KEYWORDS: Global Citizenship, Catalyst, Cog, SDG, Watchdog.

The fourth pillar of democracy plays a pertinent role in parliamentary democracy like India. When we discuss about the Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDG’s), the role of media becomes undeniable and invaluable. Sustainable development can only be achieved if we fulfil 3 basic criteria in my perspective. First and foremost, the media role shouldn’t be censored and suppressed in the wake of parcocracy. We already know that media act as a watchdog and performs certain prominent roles in democracy. Secondly, more and more impetus should be given on dissemination of sustainable goals among common masses as many don’t know much about the SDG’s. In my opinion, a well-informed public and media can cause a paradigm shift which is the need of an hour. Last but not least, we should raise the issue of Global citizenship among general public so that people get into it and they get more informed about it. Global Citizenship is an idea which says that one’s identity can transcends geographical and political boundaries and they termed the normal citizen as ‘World Citizen’. Under this concept, the citizen is entitled of all civic duties and responsibilities.

Key Objectives and Need of Paper:

• To review the current status of sustainable development in PAN India.
• To identify the roadblocks which causes hindrance in establishment of Sustainable society.
• Creation and identification of validated database of SDG information for journalists.

The Hindu (2018) published in one of its article that “Global Citizenship give rise to the citizens’ sovereignty, prosperity and integrity. It equipped citizen with all civic rights that are stated in Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. The watchdog role of media should go on till eternity to find out the loopholes of parliamentary implementations and executions of various human laws. The absence of universally acclaimed recognized body is putting all agendas on rest which is harmful.

The outcomes reflects the prominent progress of media campaigns in various media vehicles. The people are now well informed and educated about the concept of SDG. The below mentioned table shows the per cent increase in sustainable living in response of media campaign.

Table 01: Various Media campaigns towards Sustainable Development Goals and its growth in India.

YEAR 2000-06 2006-2011 2011-15 2015-17 2017-2018

Various media campaigns by various media houses towards SDG

140

275

560

1780

2500

PERCENT GROWTH – 97 122 177 297

As per the findings of Audit Bureau of Circulation it has been found that there has been rise of 297% in various media campaigns (both social and traditional media) till 2018 if compared to year 2000 in terms of Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

I have conducted surveys of various internet users (respondents are from colleges and localities) and took one to one interviews along with that I have exhaustively read many articles, books and reviewed literature. This research paper is a mix of both Explorative and Descriptive studies. (Primary and Secondary data, In-depth interviews, case studies and so forth)

The media should pave the way for investigative journalism for future reporters and editors so that they shouldn’t get fabricated and maligned by the general public when they talk about issues like Global Citizenship and Implementation of SDG. Media should become voice of public and strengthen them all.

The research focus on understanding public parks in cities and their benefits to city dwellers. The study is based on literature related to Public Park and their benefits include research papers. Understand benefits of Public Parks through various research domains are analyzed by different researcher in different context. Finding of the study is public parks are important space for city dwellers; provide benefit for cities dwellers in term of social interaction, cultural platform, economy generation, ecological development, health improvement. Major role of public parks in cities is place for recreation, opportunity for encounter, and place for relaxation, generate public realm.

A Park is an area of natural, semi-natural, or planted space set aside for human enjoyment and recreation or for the protection of wildlife or natural habitats. It may consist of grassy areas, rocks, soil, and trees, but may also contain buildings and other artifacts such as monuments; fountains or playground structures (Wikipedia) Parks belong to a vast category of land uses termed public open places. These places cover a broad range of purposes that are devoted to serving the needs and interests of diverse groups and many subdivisions of the population. The simplest definition of a park is provided by Lynch, who describes parks as pieces of land that are colored green on planners’ maps.

City parks and open space improve our physical and psychological health, strengthen our communities, and make our cities and neighborhoods more attractive places to live and work. Numerous studies have shown the social, environmental, economic, and health benefits parks bring to a city and its people.

Parks are a neutral ground where people tolerate a wide range of activities and people, a place of freedom within the city green open spaces generate Opportunities for shelter and privacy while playing in private gardens have also been identified as favorites elements that are well remembered as childhood experiences by adults. Children’s experiences of vegetation as a play object, food, a task, an obstacle, an ornament or as adventure were identified in a research project. The importance of open spaces and parks in the urban situation for both active and passive recreation has been accepted since the investigation of parks in the nineteenth century, when public walks were seen as part of the recreational package of these spaces. Parks are well used at lunchtimes. The ethic of care can in fact have a positive impact on public open space by reducing the fear of crime and enhancing the perception of safety Parks encouraging older people to participate in physical activities may not only improve their physical fitness and sense of well-being but may also increase their IQ and longevity Urban outdoor activities’ can provide opportunities for young and old to develop feelings of well-being, self-confidence, relaxation and independence. People with disabilities have been encouraged to participate in sport with outdoor activities such as individual and team ball games, athletics and camping proving to be good at providing variety, pleasure and an opportunity for personal progression. Urban parks, in particular, are used for a range of events which might increase the sense of community. It has been estimated that the numbers of people now using urban open spaces annually for events is more than the numbers using such spaces for active sport.Teenagers in Australia value developed parks. Different racial groups were identified as having different approaches to active and passive recreation in thirteen parks in Chicago In Los Angeles it was identified that people from ethnically and socially diverse backgrounds all used parks because they offered greenery and recreational opportunities for people and their children The existence of trees as well as grass in public areas can be an attraction for people to spend more time outdoors, which improves social interaction among the members of the community. User’s behavior settings observed and classified into 4 main categories as health related social interaction , recreational and others.

The purpose of urban green space is a kind of the levels of urban land use and man-made vegetation that has socio-economic efficiency and also ecological efficiency. Beside psychological, health and aesthetic benefits, natural features in cities can have other social benefits. Nature can encourage the use of outdoor spaces, increases social integration and interaction among neighbors. Greenery helps people to relax and renew, reducing aggression. The diversity and richness of these areas and spaces contribute to the physical and mental health of urban inhabitants presence of natural features such as gardens, urban parks, forests, and green belts with their particular components (trees, shrubs, water etc.) contribute to quality of life in many ways. Urban green spaces have been shown to improve health and well-being through conferring a number of ecosystem services. Urban green spaces reduce noise pollution. Urban green spaces improving air quality through absorbing and shielding from particulates preventing heat stress by providing shade. The presence of greenness was found to be positively related to active park use. Pollution levels in larger parks are probably lower because there is more space for air dispersion and noise attenuation. Urban inhabitants’ perception of environmental amenity is more related to the green space than to the acoustical environment. Creation of urban green spaces is one of the solutions for solving environmental problems and even more this effort converts urban environment to habitable environment for citizens. The purpose of urban green space is a kind of the levels of urban land use and man-made vegetation that has socio-economic efficiency and also ecological efficiency. Microclimate regulation. Air quality regulation.

Property value increases. Enhanced marketability and faster sales it helps to create a favorable image for a place, boosting retail sales attracting tourism encouraging employment. The economic value of the urban green spaces is the sum of values that people, both individually and collectively, attach to nature. Park improve health, business activity & reduce crime.

Proximity to green space was associated with lower rates of self-reported ill health, lack of social support and loneliness. Described health, social and economic benefits of parks. Proposed a conceptual model of the environmental attributes of a park that affects park use. Studies suggest that green infrastructure may have a considerable potential for improving the health of urban residents. Proposed a conceptual model linking green infrastructure, ecosystem health and human health and well-being. Highlighted a need to evaluate the potential economic implications of green infrastructure. Urban areas with walk able green space associated with increased survival of senior citizens. Respondents with higher levels of green space reported being less affected by stressful life events, and better perceived mental health. Greater use of green space associated with less reported stress .Closer proximity to green space was also associated with better self-reported health. Greater access to parks was associated with increased levels of physical activity participation by children. Perception of neighborhood greenness associated with better physical and mental health.

From the above studies it is observed that public park is an important space for city dwellers. Park in cities act as an economy generator, provide cultural platform, improve health condition and social interaction of city dwellers, it also reduces crime in city and generate safety and security among the citizens. Major role of public parks in cities is place for recreation, opportunity for encounter, and place for relaxation .Public Parks are creating image through its character and become identity for city. It acts as attractive tourist spot for city. And many more other benefit observe by researcher most of them are social, ecological, economical, health and cultural. Individual of each age group, gender, use park for different activity; generate liveliness, and public realm help to improve quality of life.

Varying methods of naturalization persist in contemporary international society. Many states employ citizenship tests in order to fashion their own requirements for citizenship. However, with the rise of multiculturalism, citizenship tests have been sometimes viewed as contentious methods of integration. Those who oppose citizenship tests assert that these trajectories solely serve to assimilate migrants and do not do enough to maintain and embrace their original cultural roots. In order to determine whether or not citizenship tests can coexist with multicultural approaches to integration, multiculturalism, integration, and citizenship’s fundamental meaning across different perspectives will first be delineated. Secondly, the Dutch citizenship test will be critically analyzed in order to examine why its components do not fit a multicultural model of integration. Thirdly, the Canadian citizenship test and its capability for multicultural integration will be examined. Finally, these two cases will be juxtaposed and compared, in order to show how their differences help explain whether or not citizenship tests fit multicultural models of integration. Citizenship tests can coexist with multicultural approaches to integration, but in order to do so, they must be able to accommodate immigrants with varying levels of wealth and education, they must not seek to alter their pre-existing social beliefs, and they should help them ease into life in a new country whilst still enabling immigrants to celebrate their cultural roots.

Integration and multiculturalism are two contentious terms in international migration discussion that are rarely defined in modern political discourse. Integration, according to Professor Tariq Modood, is “where processes of social interaction are seen as two-way, and where members of the majority community as well as immigrants and ethnic minorities are required to do something; so the latter cannot alone be blamed for failing to or not trying to integrate” (Modood, 2011: 4). Established institutions in society, such as the government, employers, and civil society, must take the lead to promote integration within their establishments (Modood, 2011: 4). For integration to take place, Modood asserts that citizen’s rights and opportunities “must be made effective through anti-discrimination laws and policies” (Modood, 2011: 4). Civic integration, a relatively new extension of integration, is defined by Sergio Carrera and Anja Wiesbrock as the “strong cultural and identitarian connotations on the juridical framing of the phenomena of human mobility and diversity” (Carrera et al, 2009: 3). They go on to explain that, in contemporary international migration, it “can be considered a new discursive line intending to hide the much-contested classical logics of assimilation or acculturation” (Carrera et al, 2009: 3). Mireille Paquet defines civic integration as policies that “correspond to mandatory measures focused on the acquisition of language and on the demonstration of individual alignment with a set of national—often presented as liberal—values” (Paquet, 2012: 244). These civic integration programs may contradict multicultural models of immigration, and usually employ integration courses or introductory/orientation programs, tests and contracts (Carrera et al, 2009: 3). Political philosopher Will Kymlicka defines multiculturalism as the legal and political accommodation of ethnic diversity (Kymlicka, 2012: 1). Modood offers a more detailed explanation, stating that multiculturalism is “where processes of integration are seen both as two-way and as involving groups as well as individuals and working differently for different groups” (Modood, 2011: 4). In this sense, Modood explains, each group is distinctive, and thus “integration cannot consist of a single template” (Modood, 2011: 4). In the context of multicultural integration and citizenship, Modood says that multiculturalism can be mistaken as “about encouraging minority difference without a counterbalancing emphasis on cross-cutting commonalities and a vision of a greater good.” This, he believes, convinces many that multiculturalism can be “divisive” and a “productive of segregation” (Modood, 2011: 10). This interpretation may add stigma and stymie effective naturalization policy.

In simple terms, a citizenship test determines whether or not a person is qualified to become a citizen (Etzioni, 2007: 353). However, this definition is rather limited—especially in the context of modern international migration. Amitai Etzioni describes them as tools used to “control the level and composition of immigration” (Etzioni, 2007: 353). To support this claim, he notes how “almost exclusively immigrants or their children who are subject to these tests” and how, historically, citizenship exams have been “introduced or modified in line with changing attitudes towards immigration in those nations that utilize them” (Etzioni, 2007: 353). A proper citizenship test, Etzioni asserts, should “establish both whether they are acculturated (on some key fronts) and are fully aware of their right to keep their differences in many other areas.” (Etzioni, 2007: 359). The meaning or status of citizenship itself has different meanings dependent upon the perspective used. The liberal perception of citizenship views it as a set of rights enjoyed equally by every member of a certain society. Liberal citizenship tests “determine whether future citizens are aware of their right to free speech and that it cannot be denied. They seek to ensure that citizens know that they are free to form any associations as they wish, practice their religion and so on” (Etzioni, 2007: 358). A neo-communitarian perspective views citizens as “both right-bearing individuals and as persons who must assume responsibilities towards each other and toward the community at large” (Etzioni, 2007: 359). Neo-communitarians believe citizenship tests should include normative commitments, not just knowledge. Preparation for neo-communitarian tests would include significant efforts towards acculturation, but not the fostering of assimilation in the sense that “it would encourage the eradication of subcultures of various immigrants” (Etzioni, 2007: 359). Contrarily, authoritarian communitarians believe that, in order to maintain social harmony, individual rights and political liberties “must be curtailed” (Etzioni, 2007: 359). Authoritarian communitarians also assert that the West’s notion of liberty is anarchic, that strong economic growth requires limiting freedoms, and that the West “uses its idea of legal and political rights to chastise other cultures that have inherent values of their own” (Etzioni, 2007: 360). Proponents of this view of citizenship usually prefer other means of immigration control instead of using citizenship tests (Etzioni, 2007: 360).

The path to full Dutch citizenship is expensive, unaccommodating, and does not fit a multicultural model of integration. The possession of a Dutch high school (or higher) diploma provides an exemption from the requirement to pass a citizenship test for naturalization (Groenendijk et al, 2010: 9). This exemption implies that the citizenship test will primarily affect first-generation of immigrants, who have generally not followed Dutch education, and second generation school drop-outs, “the number of which is exceptionally high in the Netherlands” (Groenendijk et al, 2010: 9). These latter categories will be barred by the “expensive” and “complicated” Dutch citizenship test, which will need to be passed in order to acquire full citizenship and permanent residence (Groenendijk et al, 2010: 9). Since the introduction of this test in April of 2003, “naturalizations decreased by 50%” (Groenendijk et al, 2010: 9). The test, for which no study material had been made available, was made so difficult that many immigrants did not register to take the expensive test in the first place (Groenendijk et al, 2010: 9-10). This is clearly to the detriment of immigrants with low levels of education and is therefore not consistent with a multicultural model of integration. Although one of the official aims of the test was to improve integration—the opposite effect occurred: many immigrants gave up their wish for full citizenship (Groenendijk et al, 2010: 10). Hence, this citizenship test “creates extra barriers for lower-educated immigrants who lack the financial means to obtain the level required by the test” and “is difficult to justify in respect of the principle of equal treatment of all citizens in a liberal democracy” (Groenendijk et al, 2010: 10). In regards to content, political sociologist Christian Joppke classifies the Dutch citizenship test as a “nationalist imposition of ill-defined ‘Dutch norms and values’ on (Muslim) immigrants,” with “increasingly punitive and exclusionary connotations” (Joppke, 2010: 1). After decades of using an effective multicultural model of immigrant naturalisation, Joppke notes how “political elites responded by scaling back official multiculturalism and turning towards civic integration” (Joppke, 2007: 6). The content of the test aims to promote participation in mainstream Dutch institutions, and “obliges most non-EU newcomers to participate in a 12-month integration course, which consists of 600 hours of Dutch language instruction, civic education, and preparation for the labour market” (Joppke, 2007: 6). Migrants are also required to pay for the integration courses in full (Joppke, 2007: 7). This requirement exemplifies a citizenship test that clearly does not fit an accommodating multicultural model of integration, as lower-income migrants will be significantly disadvantaged. Joppke concludes his analysis of the Dutch citizenship test by stating that, “what began as an immigrant integration policy has thus turned into its opposite, a no-immigration policy” (Joppke, 2007: 8).

Many have praised the Canadian citizenship test as an exemplary process of naturalization. The test, by most accounts, adequately accommodates multicultural integration (Banting et al, 2013: 587). The exam itself is one of the last steps in Canada’s naturalization process (Pacquet, 2012: 251). The test is comprised of 20 multiple choice questions, focusing on themes such as democracy, citizens’ rights and duties, and Canadian history, geography, economy, and political institutions” (Pacquet, 2012: 253). Political philosopher Mareille Pacquet states that, due to the “relative simplicity” of the test and the “broad scope of the study guide,” with proper preparation, most candidates will be pass the test (Pacquet, 2012: 253). Therefore, Pacquet asserts that the test has a “rather minimalist conception of citizenship, and its content does not seem to be an obstacle to naturalization” (Pacquet, 2012: 253). According to Banting and Kymlicka, the citizenship test “combines multiculturalism and integration” due to two main elements which are “critical to this compatibility” (Banting et al, 2013: 588). Firstly, Language training and integration programmes are provided by the Canadian government free of charge. There is “no linkage between participation in them and continued residency or access to social benefits” (Banting et al, 2013: 588). Secondly, the Canadian national identity embraces and celebrates diversity (Banting et al, 2013: 588). Banting and Kymlicka attribute this multicultural sentiment to the adoption of bilingualism and multiculturalism in Canada in the 1960s and 1970s, which “represented a state-led redefinition of national identity, an effort to deemphasize the historic conception of the country as a British society and to build an identity more reflective of Canada’s cultural complexity” (Banting et al, 2013: 588). Although the Canadian conservative government has since instituted some reforms in order to “redefine Canadian identity by emphasizing more traditional symbols such as the monarchy and the military,” these reforms have “not sought to eliminate multiculturalism, and has operated through incremental adjustments” (Banting et al, 2013: 589). The Canadian citizenship test coexists with Canada’s multicultural model of integration, and provides very few “cultural barriers to a sense of belonging” (Banting et al, 2013: 588).

Citizenship tests, like the Canadian one, that are accessible, that can cater to the needs of disadvantaged migrants, and can balance a reasonable degree of assimilation whilst embracing cultural diversity can coexist with multicultural approaches to integration. Although both Canada and the Netherlands have national identities that ostensibly endorse multiculturalism, only Canada has been able to integrate this into their processes of naturalization. While Canada’s citizenship exam is accommodating and based on a practical understanding of things such as the country’s history and the rights of its citizens, the Dutch integration requirements are structured as “a form of assimilation” based on subscribing to a “thick public moral that the immigrant is expected to share” (Michalowski, 2009: 2). This distinction is key to understanding which citizenship tests can effectively accommodate multicultural integration. An analysis of the differences in the contents of Canadian and Dutch citizenship tests may shed light on this distinction. While Canada provides study guides for its citizenship test, the Netherlands has decided to keep questions and answers to its exams secret (Michalowski, 2009: 9). Unlike the Canadian test, the Dutch exam “asks questions about (supposedly) Dutch social norms which immigrants are asked to know and respect” (Michalowski, 2009: 21). The Netherlands, unlike Canada and other states with multicultural approaches to integration, employ a citizenship test which stresses the “large role” that the Dutch state assumes over immigrant integration, as “even details of social interactions are considered to fall under the scope of state action” (Michalowski, 2009: 21). Professor Ines Michalowski even goes as far to state that the presence of these “lifestyle questions” may serve to target and alienate groups such as religiously conservative Muslims, as the test even addresses contentious issues such as “equality between men and women, the (legal) acceptance of homosexuality or the illegal character of honor killings, female genital mutilation, and forced marriage” (Michalowski, 2009: 21). Citizenship exams such as these have led some scholars to believe that the aim of these tests is not to “enhance citizenship capacity and the free unimpeded development of the self in manifold associations with others” but to “enhance governments’ control of membership of the polity and the disciplining of the migrant population” (Kostakopoulou, 2010: 16). While some states such as Canada adopt processes of naturalisation which seek to prepare immigrants for life in their country, others such as the Netherlands structure citizenship tests and other integrations methods to influence immigrants and indoctrinate them into their chosen ideals, beliefs, and practices.

In conclusion, citizenship tests can coexist with multicultural approaches to integration if they are accessible, and ease the immigrant transition, and instead of seeking to shape one’s original, culturally-derived beliefs and ideals, they encourage different beliefs and ethnic diversity. As interstate migration continues to rise, citizenship tests that do not fit multicultural models of integration will be increasingly visible. Migration is an innate human right that must be upheld, and should not be subject to the heavy-assimilationist policy that does not tolerate alternative cultural views and practices. While civic integration policies may claim to merely ease the immigrant transition, some states have used this term as a guise to discipline the migrant population. In order to facilitate a more inclusive, pluralistic international society, citizenship tests and other forms of naturalization must employ multicultural models of integration.

The purpose of this essay is to discuss how the development of citizenship has progressed through the recognition of gender, sexuality and family choice. The term citizenship is often used to describe the status of an individual`s residency alongside upkeeping responsibilities. The usual responsibilities include paying taxes, serving on a jury when summoned, obeying the law, and as a whole being an active member of society that positively contributes towards the economic and social growth of a country. Citizenship rights as being a crucial debate in history well as in modern society. Within the past century citizenship rights have drastically changed due to political movements that transformed laws and legislations that protect individuals from being discriminated against. Historically, citizenship rights favored the wealthy, heterosexual, and privileged, it largely ignored sexual minorities and women’s rights. Within recent years the development of citizenship rights has helped to reshape and transform the way of living for all citizens on a global scale, however, it is still debatable to question if the development of citizenship rights have been beneficial for all individuals in society, this essay intends to explore the impact on how social movements have helped to reshape and reform citizenship rights within modern society.

Historically, citizenship was predominantly based on political and legal rights that mainly favored the male agenda, it largely ignored issues within the LGBTQ community and family choice, the law at the time would reject sexual minorities having equal rights. The gay community relentlessly fought for equal rights that sparked a political movement of decriminalization of homosexuality in 1967 (UK Parliament) sexual offenses act 1967 was a commendable milestone for homosexuals, as this act permitted homosexual acts amongst consenting adults to be legal. until recent years citizenship rights were constructed based on the male image (Pateman,1988) discourses on sexual citizenship has contributed to the questioning on outdated traditional models of citizenship rights, traditionally, only heterosexual spouses were able to marry and have children, there was no recognition of variety form of family (adoption, surrogacy, co-parenting, IVF) as a consequence citizenship rights only catered to a small population of citizens disregarding people that don`t fall into social norms of living. Therefore, it`s fair to acknowledge how social movements amongst the LQBTQ community helped to reshape heterosexual attitudes towards same-sex marriages. According to (PNAS.org) the legalization of same-sex marriages prompted a decrease of antigay bias. Indicating laws and policy shape attitudes toward people that are treated as an outcast in society.

The development of citizenship rights significantly impacted how lesbians and gay men are treated in society, for example, rights to same-sex marriage helped with the progression of social changes which has contributed towards modern forms of citizenship status (Richardson,2017) indicating that society is progressively becoming more accepting towards sexual minorities, the efforts to normalize same-sex relationships has helped to increase awareness of anti-gay anti-lesbian bias, (Massey, Merriwether and Garcia, 2013) emphasizes the increase of same-sex couples has resulted in the progress of same-sex parenting to also have an increase, indicating that more people within the LGBTQ community are becoming more open to coming and embracing their sexuality without fear of judgment, well as living in their truth, leading towards a more socially accepting nation. Historically, same-sex relationships were deemed as being unethical and of sinful nature, however within the course of time society is moving towards a more modernized way of living. Additionally to that, government legislation has helped to reshape attitudes to the extent it has impacted religious and political grounds, for example, there has been an increase of same-sex wedding attendance.

The development of citizenship rights have significantly contributed to the improvement of the overall well-being of the LGBTQ community, there is a higher representation of gay and lesbian politicians, well as in schools and public health services according to () increased representation enables people to understand different forms of sexuality, creating a society that doesn’t tolerate but has a mutual understanding of choice helps with removing negative stigmas attached to gays and lesbians couples and parenthood, when people aren`t exposed to different sexualities within social setting it creates as a hostile environment, making people who are homosexuals to feel less than.

The recognition of sexual citizenship has allowed people to become more understanding of sexualities that haven`t had a positive representation with the past. It`s of human nature for people to less open to accepting newer way of living if it hasn`t been normalized within society, therefore, when laws and legislations such as sexual citizenship is granted it allows people to accept sexual minorities as citizens and not just people that society has to tolerate. However, due the development of sexual citizenship people have argued it has become more privatized and monitored, this can cause conflict within the LGBTQ community creating division between gay and lesbians.

(Weeks, 1995) emphasizes same-sex relationships going public is a key element for homosexual couples to ultimately have a private life. When individuals in society become more exposed to various form of family choice it allows individuals with stereotypical views to remove negative stigmas against same-sex parenting, the general public are more likely to become more accepting of new way of living if laws and legislations approve. Normalizing behavior allows more opportunities for homosexuals to feel accepted as citizens rather than an outcast within a community.

even though same-sex marriages in Britain has become legalized same-sex marriage rights are still being rejected by as individuals may be refused to be (Gerstman, 2017) argues that homosexuals are still denied basic rights of same-sex marriage rights even with citizenship rights, this is indicates even with same-sex marriages rights do not have the same privileges heterosexual marriages, this can citizenship has historically been framed to s since the discrimination of homosexuality there has been an increase of diversity within parliament (GOV.UK,2017) there has been an increase of more females, ethnic minorities, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender MPs this is an indication of the progression of gender equality, these political changes wouldn`t have existed without the efforts of people in society the fought for change and equality.

In this part of the essay intends to highlight how gender equality rights has contributed to the development of citizenship rights. Modern society pushes the agenda for equal rights, it is typically motivated by overturning laws that previously discriminated against minorities in the past(). particularly, women`s right wouldn`t be what they`re today without the political efforts of the suffragettes and many more social movements that has helped to eradicate outdated laws and legislations.

It`s evident throughout history that women and men have always been treated differently, women were unable to reach their full potential, due to a lack of independence and access to equal opportunities, whereas with men, had full legal rights to work and earn their own money, the laws in the past didn`t cater to women`s needs, if anything laws were put emplaced to ensure woman couldn`t have easy access to education and high status in male-dominated environments. Women were treated as Insignificance, they were seen as being less valuable towards the development of society. (Wang,2012) Emphasizes how women’s status as citizens were marked through hardship, underrepresentation, discrimination and inequality, indicating although women have gained citizenship rights it doesn`t uphold the same level of value compared to men in society, for example, the gender pay gap remains an ongoing issues within society, women and men can have the same educational qualifications, however, women in workplaces are still seen as liabilities in working environment well as being vulnerable to sexual assaults. Women still have to fight for equal rights within workplaces and social settings, to a significant degree citizenship rights favor the male discourses.

Therefore, even though the development of citizenship rights has had a commendable and increase of acknowledgment for females there is still a significant level of gender bias that prevents equal citizenship rights.

North Korea is situated in East Asia, consisting the northern section of the Korean land. The ruler of this country is Kim Jong-un. It has a population of 25.49 million people. Tourism or emigration in North Korea is strictly controlled by its government. Foreign tourists encountering local citizens have been strictly controlled. However, from photos seen around the Internet and, evidence from tourists to North Korea, few of those restrictions have relaxed in the past few years. On the other hand, tax rates are very high if you would decide to purchase a motor vehicle.

Global Perspectives

The mission of Sweden diplomacy to North Korea indicates the contempt against the North Korean nation, its leaders are regarded by the North Korean government, as very provoking. The United States department of State prevents and prohibits the usage of U.S. passports to travel to North Korea, unless they have a special validation or priority. Russia and China did not prohibit the American authored new sanctions against North Korea in the UN Security Council. Although China went along with a new set of restrictive measures banning North Korean exports of coal, iron, etc. The United States, Russia, China, and the rest of the lesser states face the political dilemma, of what kind of foreign policy to pursue. With despots like Kim Jong-Un, who could not adapt himself to discipline at all, particularly those who would secure domestic tranquility and decent standard of living towards the people to create international relationships, which would be impossible.

National Perspectives

Due to the absence of political freedom and economic opportunities in North Korea, it rapidly loses its attraction towards the upcoming foreign laborers. Most of the citizens are unable to leave the country as it is strictly restricted. Within North Korea, people are not allowed to travel around the country, unless prior permission is granted. Citizens are not aware of what happens out of the country, as they do not have access to newspapers, televisions, and radios except for whatever the government propaganda machine creates, so they have been led to believe that the standard of living in other countries is worse than their own. However, foreign tourists require special permission to speak to local citizens.

What would happen if the law is relaxed and citizens are able to travel out of the country?

• The population would reduce immediately.
• All the local citizens would figure out what is happening out of the country and therefore cause conflicts.
• The economy of the country would reduce rapidly.

Different Perspectives

The North Korean government strictly monitors the activities done by foreign visitors. There human rights have been the worst in the world. North Korea has no contemporary parallel. Tourism is strictly controlled, they are not permitted to speak to local people, so that citizens are unaware of their surroundings (excluding their country). Criticism of the leadership in North Korea (if-reported), is enough to make you end up in a political prison camp. The government has been accused of viciously persecuting citizens while ruthlessly pursuing the development of nuclear weapons.

Analysis

Travel agents can help potential visitors to visit to North Korea (designated tour areas) but they have to go through a bureaucratic process. Guides are usually appointed-by the country’s ministry of tourism (Illegal for tourists to independently enter). Access to the global Internet is allowed only to high-ranking officials. North Korea has been experiencing a change of leadership from 17 years of rule, under Kim Jong-il, to a new generation under his young son, Kim Jong-un, who took influence and power following his father’s death in December 2011. As Kim seeks to strengthen his leadership, the climate of skepticism is sure-to-persist. North Koreans live in the world’s most isolated-nations. These citizens do not have the right to leave the country or travel within the country. One of the reasons locals are not allowed to leave the country is to prevent citizens from rebelling against the government and to keep them ignorant and unknowing of what goes on outside the boarders. Kim Jong-un wants to gain power by using his people. North Korea’s recent-strides towards building nuclear weapons indicates that the dictator of North Korea is in greed of power. It is an isolated and paranoid nation that tightly controls what the outside world sees.

Evaluation

While interpreting this report I encountered bias information from the following source: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/explaining-north-korean-migration-to-china. This source contained information of North Korea, permitting immigration and emigration as they were unaware (although they are strict with it). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/07/north-korea-defectors-drop is a source which deliberately misleads the reader.

Problem Solving

• Once North Koreans confronted with international information, they will know their tyrannical government have been lying to them.
• Analysts often credit South Korean TV shows or movies with the ability to change people’s thinking inside North Korea. This would help information to be leaked out easily.
• Some initiatives take great risks to smuggle outside information and entertainment back in, particularly on flash/pen drives.
• Citizens watching South Korean dramas encourages people to leave North Korea rather than stay and try to change the government.
• The autocracy can be brought down by breaking its monopoly on valuable information.

Reflection and Conclusion

As I was interpreting this report, my viewpoint was to find out why people are not allowed to leave from North Korea. Immensely I figured out that these citizens do not have equal human rights, which is really devastating to know. However, they are also not free and are under the government’s control. I believe that the North Korean leader is greedy for power, so to obtain power, he does not leak out any information to the citizens and prevents migration for his own benefits.

Therefore, I have reached to my conclusion that North Korea’s citizens should be able to leave their country with legal permission and have equal human rights.

In order to be a good citizen, you have to follow rules, laws, expectations, and responsibilities. We have these rules and responsibilities so everyone can be safe. Not only do you have to follow rules, laws, expectations, and responsibilities, but it’s expected of you to help out your community. You can do this by volunteering at places, such as a local pet shelter, donating food to a food drive, or donating clothes to a consignment store. You can even help do a simple thing like picking up trash around your neighborhood. To add on, you always need to follow the laws, but you also need to be kind to and accepting of everyone. No matter what religion they practice, what color their skin is, or what gender they are, you should always treat them with respect. Yes, everyone is different, but you have to accept that. This world has changed because we aren’t accepting of everyone. Imagine if everyone changed their thinking. To where everyone accepted each other, everyone would change for the better.

Citizenship connects us. We all have different rules for wherever we go, such as public places like schools, cities, states, and nations. There is a private place where your family sets the rules and responsibilities, which is home. Home is the least important for following the rules because it only applies to a few people, but you should still do it. While the nation is the most important because that applies to everyone that is a citizen of the United States.

At home, you are required to follow your parents’ or guardians’ rules. This is so you can learn how to be a good citizen. Your parents expect you to follow these rules and responsibilities when they are set. Some rules and responsibilities are different for every home, they may be similar, but they aren’t the same. Most of the time when you break a rule your parents or guardian will punish you. Keep in mind every house is different and they may not punish you like other parents or guardians. When you stay a night at a friend’s house, you need to respect the rules of the parents or guardians that have set in that house.

Now when you are at school, rules will be slightly different and will be placed in a student handbook. You are to follow the rules and responsibilities that your teacher and principal that has placed for you. If you do break those rules, there will be punishments given by the teacher or principal. The punishments may vary, such as getting your phone taken away when you are not supposed to be on it, or it may lead to you being expelled. This means you aren’t allowed to take school in this district.

When you live in your town or city, that is inside your state, the town or city has laws and responsibilities you have to follow. Like at school or home. Inside your state, the rules may be a little bit more detailed with the punishments. The city has more laws and they are more detailed. The city, state, and nation are really strict when it comes to laws, to keep everyone safe. Showing citizenship in your state is one of the most important ones. One of the main responsibilities of your citizenship is voting for the governor. The United States is the majority vote. On the other hand, if most of the population isn’t voting, it defeats the purpose of voting. Voting is only one way to help out your state, there are many more. Most importantly you can help out your nation, which is the country you live in. Helping your nation may be harder than helping out most. Such as your home or community, but it’s not impossible. Everyone can make a change to their country, even if you are ten years old! There are many ways you to be a good citizen and help your country become better.

A lot of people wonder how you may show citizenship for your home. There are many ways you may help around the house. For example, if you have family pets, you can take tend to their needs, which would be letting them outside for the bathroom or taking them on a walk. Another way is respecting your parents and siblings, especially your parents. Listening to their rules can help follow important laws for your, school, city, state, and nation. By being there for your family this will cause everyone to be less stressed out. Having a less stressful life will lead to everyone being in a good mood. Doing chores or helping out without being told will show that you have respect for your parents and your house. Without rules in your house, this can cause behavioral issues in public. This is why having rules at your house is so important.

Getting your education at school and staying on task is important. There are many ways you can show that you care. Paying attention in class and not talking during class shows that you have respect for that teacher. It will also show the teacher that you want to learn something in their class. By doing these simple tasks in the classroom it can lead to good things. Such as bettering your education and leading a good example for younger students is a good thing. This can lead to better behavior for younger kids, and this can allow them to get a good education and good grades. In high school, freshmen look up to seniors, so the seniors have to lead by example. This is why it’s so beneficial for you to follow the rules at school.

There are so many ways you can help out your city. I think our community really needs to improve on making this a better environment. People vandalize and pollute our cities and towns, so we need to start taking action on this. We are really lacking this special necessity. Respecting the rules of our community that the mayor has set to keep everyone would help out making this a better place to live. This would also help people have respect for one another. Everyone is almost getting to the point where we don’t care about our citizenship. Everyone is almost getting to the point where people are fighting every day and disrespecting our community. If we take action and the adults in the community lead by example, then the teens will hopefully follow the steps of the adults. We as a community need to start caring a little more and stop being so selfish. Everyone must do this so we can all rise and become a better community.

The state is another level of citizenship. This is the most important besides the nation. This is just like the community, we are trying to make a better place to live. One of the most important things anyone can stress about is voting. This is a responsibility everyone is given as a citizen. If you don’t vote you aren’t following the expectation of the governor. However, voting may be stressed, but showing citizenship is also really stressed. This can include respecting everyone. Including someone of a different race or gender. In another case, it can be someone practicing a different religion. Showing kindness towards everyone is showing you have respect for all kinds of kinds. It will make your governor really proud.

Most of the time it’s hard to get the nation to agree on a lot of things. This is because there are a lot of people in the United States. However, there are a lot of things everyone can do to help this nation become better! You can do this by being kind to one another. By doing this it can impact our nation by a lot.

You can be kind by, opening the door for people that you don’t know or do know. Additionally, you can start by giving everyone nice compliments, even though you may or may not know the person. If that stranger, friend, sibling, parent, or even grandparent is having a bad day, all they want to hear is something nice. It also shows that you have respect for that person because you said something nice to them. Just by saying one nice thing a day, you can make this world a better place.

Being a good citizen will influence peace between everyone. Following rules at home can set a base for following the laws in the nation when you’re older. If everyone didn’t have good citizenship, there would be a lot of conflict between everyone. It’s almost getting to that point now where everyone isn’t agreeing on everything. We can all prevent crucial wars just by simply following the laws or rules of home, school, city, state, and nation.

Following the rules and laws is very relevant to having good citizenship, but you also need to be kind to one and another. Everyone nowadays likes to be rude and not respectful. We can all change this type of attitude by just saying nice things to each other. If we say one nice thing to one another, you and the person you said the compliment to will be in a good mood. To be a good citizen all you need to do is be kind and follow the laws and rules that a person has set for you.

Citizenship is a concept of legal status which holds numbers of rights and entitlements and gives a sense of identity and belonging to the homeland country. It acquires or contains a universal desire term. Citizenship can be categories in many terms such as bad citizens, good citizens, active citizens and passive citizens. Having a citizenship is not only denoted legal status but also represents other claims, presumption and another status. Citizen is a word which is more than unselfconsciously imitative impertinence. During the British colonialism, British imperialist due their immigration and emigration policies had changed the concept of citizenship which is known as “imperial citizenship”. Imperial citizenship is fundamental ideas which distinguish between the external and internal aspects of citizenship question (S. Banerjee, 2010). Historically imperial citizenship was referred to the status of Indians as member of the British Empire.

Citizenship is a term which acts as a preceded by a circumscribing of borders. It is the territorial boundaries which creates defaults categories of citizen, which live outside the boundaries and not able to enjoy domestic rights of citizenship. In recent times global migration has change the perceptions citizenship. In the era of globalization, migration include both skilled and unskilled labour but rise of refugee and which also includes outsiders in territorial boundary has threatened the harmony between the membership and the borders. In global migration there are certain terminologies which are used to describe them such as refuge, displaced persons, and outsiders captures etc. citizenship rights provides an exclusive light on those people who are already existing citizens in the country. But today, in the world of multiculturalism citizenship, the demand of recognition has displaced the demand of redistribution for which the citizenship theory has now allowing immigrants to express their rights such as in term of culture rights and seeks a balance between the ideal universal rights and the particular rights of minority which are different from the universal rights. Cosmopolitan is the sense which shares universality among all groups of people.

After world financial crisis in1991 when India and other small emerging economies opened up their economies and follow the strategy of American neoliberalism it create of visions of single human race. As it leads peaceful race which united by free trade and common legal norms, leds by states featuring civic liberties and representative institutions. In international theory such policy of liberal internationalism sought to create a global order that could enforce a code of conduct on the external relation between states. After world financial crisis in 1991 and the rise of neoliberal policies it give opportunity to designed the citizenship right in which it eliminate the social programs and promote the interest of big capital in the world economy( ). Neo liberalism reconfigures the relation between governing and governed, power and knowledge and sovereignty and territory. Neo liberalism or market driven policies had attack the citizenship element in different ways and challenges the unified model of citizenship. Even this affects the immigration and ideas and it reduces the citizenship protections. the concept of citizenship is based on binary opposition between the right of citizenship in national territory and stateless condition outside the nation- state. The politico legal concept is based on the reality that stae can only implement citizenship rights and entitlement and can only protect its claims through political membership. Citizenship as a political status continues to be exceedingly important for asylum seekers and refugee for whom gaining citizenship in host country is recognized as modern human being. Even the contemporary flow of capital and of migrants have interacted with sovereignty and rights which is discourses in complex way to free the citizenship claims once it knotted together in single territorialized mass.

Diaspora or diasporic communities in modern period, even because of border land and nation state they give rise to post national identities. The tension between diasporic cosmopolitan and nationalism is remains important but state always attempts to regulate mobile ethnic population and found new ethno nations within the establishment of nation state. The catastrophic origins and forced migration are the main features of a Diaspora. According to Anderson, he warned that contemporary globalization promotes the transnational ethnicization which results into long distance nationalism which represents a serious politics that is radically unaccountability at same time. In globalization, Diaspora always became a way of formulating the identities and loyalties of population which intrinsic linked with its homeland. In international politics, it explains the relations between the host and home states which focus on the issues like discrimination against emigrants in the host state. Even in global migration security or stability model is one the major concern for the home state as it maintain the order and control dissent in the communities abroad.

In post modern era the term of Diaspora has changed from outsiders or migrators to wealth creator in an economy. The increase of financial clout generated by the various Diaspora and the importance of remittance for the economies has become the main factor to drive the greater institutionalization of state Diaspora relationship. After the financial crisis of the global economy it became hard to argue that nation state are not more concerned of flow of capital especially from emigrants. However, it is important to overlook on the needs for remittances in explaining the changing relationship of state and their Diaspora. As it creates the assumption that how the Diaspora’s remittance became more important for economic rationale. The connection between the hailing of Diaspora and democracy is persuasive which focus on the nature of site specific political system an important aspect, as to analyze on the production of the domestic abroad. If political system is closer to democracy then there is greater possibility for Diaspora to constitute as powerful subject.

The phenomenon of domestic abroad is a manifestation of transnationalism which reflects the change of nation state. Although the term Diaspora is a transnational concept but it intrinsically connects to nationalism and it driven by the states in the context of development in form of capital social relation both at a global and national level. In theoretical sense this phenomenon needs a framework which engages with conceptual category of transnationalism but also address the nationalism, it can only happen with help of state and capitalism. Tran nationalism is a emerging process which focus on making up transnational civil society, civil society known as imagined community. In a civilized society or community should not have narrow concepts of nationalism or not limited to individual state but it should carries more than of imaginative provincialism, Trans nationalism. According to some scholar, policy makers the ideas of imaginative provincialism or tans nationalism are the divorced from which separate states from its policies but also nations from nationalism. Transnational is a term which benefits those groups which act across the border favoring most of domestic needs and extend the liberal conception of state policy. The concept of Tran nationalism should fits within the border as it helps in study of identity in global politics and latter it shapes the ontological commitments. Identity should be conceptualized which should be based on corporate and as well as social form.

At present, our society is facing various social inequalities. A significant problem is discrimination against minorities in the community and workplace. These minorities are neglected and concealed of these inequalities also by the media. Citizenship is crucial to this issue because it has always been a key factor in creating equality and inequality for equality assumes that all citizens, rather than aliens, have equal status, regardless of wealth, capabilities, and social class. Because citizenship guarantees equal rights, citizenship has always been a center of controversy. Despite some people are lawfully citizens, they are not socially citizens, facing discrimination from the society. It is therefore the struggle of those who are excluded, such as women and people of color, to gain their rights as citizens. Claudia Rankine’s Citizen and Shakespeare’s Othello both highlight relationships between citizenship and equality. By examining modern and 17th century perspectives, one can see oppression of minorities’ citizen rights used throughout history till the present day. While Citizen focuses on the inequalities at present, Othello demonstrates the differences of citizen’s and minorities’ rights in the Renaissance. This essay will discuss how true citizenship depends upon one’s equal rights compared to the others: one cannot receive full recognition as a citizen without equality.

In Citizen, Claudia Rankine reveals the cruel or hopeless cycle of the American treatment of blacks; It demonstrates Rankine’s belief that under such unequal treatment, a person or a group cannot be considered to have complete citizenship. In other words, even though one is recognized as a citizen in the legal sense, the lack of social recognition leads to the inequality of this “citizenship.” Rankine reveals the inequality in our daily life. Rankine demonstrates how racism is ubiquitous in society and how politics and the media undermine black people’s rights. Rankine explained that the racist language used to humiliate the black community was a proven tool of oppression. She points out that ‘Language that feels hurtful is intended to exploit all the ways that you are present’ (49). When a group is under oppression, society acquiesces in the emergence of such hurtful language, because the words have become a vague pronoun of the oppressed group, and are deeply rooted in people’s minds. For example, Rankine used second person throughout the book, dehumanizing the group: “You assuming she thinks she is thanking you for letting her cheat and feels better cheating from an almost white person” (5). Rankine also demonstrates the invisibility of black identity by listing the dead, and “because white men can’t police their imagination black people are dying” (49) Personally, by naming the dead, she uses her books to publicize the truth that the media does not report and will not report. On the contrary, for example, American media describes Serena Williams, an American black tennis player, as an ‘angry nigger exterior'(36) in the U.S. Open, and the media even used the words “lily white” (33) to compare Serena with the Olympic arena.

Rankine also illustrates the universality of white privilege and the corresponding black oppression. For example, she says “You are not the guy and still you fit the description because there is only one guy who is always the guy fitting the description” (105). This uniformity of black identity reduces black society to limiting stereotypes. She also made it clear that such inequality was ruthless and even invaded institutions that offered hope for equality, such as higher education institutions. Rankine illustrates this by stating: “when the woman with the multiple degrees says, I didn’t know black women could get cancer, instinctively you take two steps back though all urgency leaves the possibility of any kind of relationship as you realize no-where is where you will get from here” (45). It can be concluded that, after the media and the public, if those who are supposed to be more open-minded or so-called elites in society are also guided by public opinion, then this phenomenon is not regional, but the tone of the whole society, and once this is determined, the daily differential treatment of minorities, cannot be regarded as normal behavior, but as discrimination. Rankine doubts what citizenship means for minorities surrounded by daily attacks and slanders, and she wrote, “What did he just say? Did she really just say that? Did I heard what I think I heard?” (9), “What do you mean? Exactly what do you mean?” (47), “What is wrong with you?” (54) “Hold up, did you just hear, did you just see, did you just do that?” (55). These questions, using the sense of insecurity that minorities are facing at all times, ask the whole society: what is the citizenship of minorities? Rankine answers self-deprecatingly, ‘Yes, and this is how you are a citizen: Come on. Let it go. Move on. ‘ (151). This irony further illustrates that civil rights should be based on dignity and respect, and equality in the legal sense should also be applied to daily life. In Rankine’s view, citizenship in the legal sense are different from real citizenship, that is, equality among citizens.

Similarly, in Shakespeare’s Othello, Shakespeare demonstrate his opinion on citizenship through the characters in the play, that is, subconsciously, one will recognize citizenship and race as their own identity like other citizens equally, and make it rational to distinguish from oneself with non-citizens with this identity. Venice in the 17th century seemed to be an open city-state. It is portrayed as a free society, welcoming strangers with open arms, because they have something to offer its development and security. To some extent, Othello is popular, but only as a foreigner and mercenary, and it was a common sense that foreigners who choose to stay in Venice do not enjoy all the privileges of Venetian citizens. Therefore, Brabantio was embarrassed that Othello had the courage to propose to Desdemona, a white daughter of the Venetian aristocracy. By doing so, he has violated Venetian society by enjoying the same rights as other ordinary people, even the upper classes. It can be said that Othello did not abide by the unwritten rules, which posed a serious threat to the stability of Venetian society. According to Roderigo, a pursuer of Desdemona “In an extravagant and wheeling stranger of here and everywhere. Straight satisfy yourself. If she be in her chamber or your house, Let loose on me the justice of the state for thus deluding you.”(51) When citizens of Venice face the possibility of equal rights with other people, they naturally regard the marriage between Othello and Desdemona as a crime. From the current discussion, we can see that race is a basic problem in Shakespeare’s Othello in 17th century Venice, and it is the pivot around which the plot of the play revolves. Othello’s skin color determined his identity. Good people, Othello’s friends and families, such as the Duke, Desdemona and Cassio, call him ‘the Moor'(66); and his enemies, such as Iago, Brabantio and Rodrigo, call him ‘an old black ram'(49), ‘a Barbary horse'(50)and ‘a lascivious Moor'(50) Othello can therefore be interpreted as a synonym for different race and color in the play. This factor prevented him from enjoying the same citizenship as others, so once he crossed the bottom line of Venetian society and made himself equal with other citizens, the order of Venetian society in which Othello existed and acted was catastrophic to majorities, which also proved in Shakespeare’s cognition, no matter how much power and personality charm a person possesses, if he has different racial and non-citizenship status, he will not be recognized by the public, nor will he have the same rights as others, and because of the need to use discrimination to reduce the rights of non-citizens, the equality of citizens is a vital factor in citizenships

Gender discrimination revealed in the play also suggests that gender takes place in citizen rights. During 17th Century, According to Hall, “A woman was primarily defined by her status within the household as a wife, mother, daughter, or servant”(14). Desdemona shows her rebellious spirit as a female citizen, but we can also see the remains of patriarchy in her mind. “My noble father, I do perceive here a divided duty. To you I am bound for life and education. … I am hitherto your daughter. But here’s my husband . . . Let me go with him.” (66). From these words, Desdemona escaped the fate of obedience to her father, but failed to avoid the traditional concept of wife in marriage: “Patriarchal marriages create bonds between men as well as affirm male possession of woman’s sexuality” (14). This patriarchal idea was rooted in Desdemona’s mind at the beginning of the marriage, which could explain why when Othello stigmatized her infidelity, she did not make a direct defense or resistance, but blindly blamed herself with a low attitude and asked her husband to believe in her fidelity. “Alas, what ignorant sin I have committed(135)” From the text we can conclude that Desdemona did not resist this patriarchal consciousness until her last breath. Therefore, I believe Shakespeare is limited by his times and fails to realize the irrationality of inequality between male and female citizens, but from his writings, as well as the literature and evidence provided by Kim Hall, it can be concluded that female citizenship can be regarded as a low-level version of male citizenship, i.e. second-class citizenship. Desdemona’s performance in the play also proves that she does not enjoy equal citizenship. Under such circumstances, it is not permissible to act inconsistent with this constrained identity. It also proves Rankine’s point of view from the side.

​Rankine and Shakespeare both believe that the one of basic factor of citizenship is the equality of citizens. Citizenship represents the two-way identity of a person and his society, which makes him have the same rights as others in his country. If certain groups are treated differently, their identities cannot be viewed as equal. Therefore, these texts show that all discrimination is a symbol of the malicious way of oppressing citizenship, and this is one of the biggest obstacles to equal treatment of these groups. Rankine and Shakespeare both believes all groups of people regardless of their gender or skin color should be able to enjoy their rights without fear of discrimination.

Immigration referring to the worldwide movement of individuals into a destination nation of which they are not natives because of social, economic and political reasons. In this paper I am going to present four authors arguments that are Risse and Kukathas relatively in favor of immigration. Brock and Mills is in favor of reducing immigration. They all have different reasons for free and restricted immigration but have similar views which will be further discussed in this essay. To support my thesis this paper is organized into three parts. First section briefly describes the synopsis of the views expressed in the four texts. Second section briefly compares and contrasts their perspectives. Third section explains whether the texts are mutually complementary or contradictory in their argument and gives solution to the problems.

“On the morality of immigration” (2008), Risse argues in favor of free immigration, but he also argues against immigration that is what is good for us as a citizen. According to Risse, he viewed immigration, both as practical and moral issue. In the debate about immigration policy, the practical issue is that lots of land is underused. The moral issues that he argues about are egalitarian and common ownership. “He argues that the earth belongs to humanity in common. In order to prove this argument, he provides an example that is; the United States shrinks in two, yet that these two can control access into the nation through complex electronic border‐surveillance systems. He contends that under such conditions, these two citizens should allow for immigration based on the fact that they are terribly underusing the domain under their control. If this is so, it pursues that what we do with the space the control must matter for assessing immigration policy. Hence, illegal migration should be naturalized and more widespread immigration should be permitted. He also supports egalitarian and collective ownership. He argues that there should be no borders. People should be able to live wherever they want, regardless of when and where they were born.

In addition, “The Case for Open Immigration” (2005) Kukathas is in favor of free immigration. There are two reasons which he provides in defense of free immigration that is the principle of freedom and humanity. He argues that by keeping the borders closed would intend to keep out individuals who might, as a result, lose their freedom, yet in addition the opportunity they may look for an attempt to escape out of line or tyrannical regimes. People will lose the freedom to exchange their labor, freedom to associate, freedom to rejoin with their family, and freedom of movement. The other reason which he gave in defense of free immigration is humanity. He argues that respecting the lives and dignity of poor people who don’t have the opportunity. For example, some people live in poor condition so it’s an opportunity for them to improve their condition by immigrating and if someone’s life is in danger in their home country so they can immigrate to another country. Therefore, it would be worse off to deny their opportunity to help those people. However, in his article he argues the challenges that come with free immigration such as economic, national and security perspectives.

Furthermore, “Compatriot priority, health in developing countries, and our global responsibilities” (2011) Brock is in favor of reducing the immigration of health workers from poor to rich countries because it results into devastating impact on the health of developing countries. For example, “In Africa alone, where health needs and issues are most noteworthy, around 23,000 qualified academic professionals emigrate every year. South African medical schools recommends that a third to a half of its alumni immigrate to the developed world because of the poor working conditions, low pay and little opportunity for professional development. Therefore, lack of sufficiency in health care. He also provides some solution in order to get rid of these problems such as to establish codes of practice for international recruitment. He argues that there is an important connection between us and them in order to trigger the obligation of justice. He argues that, do we have more prominent duties towards citizens than towards foreigners? There is also problem of tax haven and tax evasion because of the open borders.

“Should active recruitment of health workers from sub-Saharan Africa be viewed as a crime”, Mills incorporates that there is a lack of health staff to provide basic health facilities in Africa than rich countries like the UK. For example, in the UK have multiple times a bigger number of doctors per population than Malawi and almost one out of ten doctors working in the UK are from Africa. Therefore, many developing countries lost many dollars in training cost. He also argues that active recruitment of health workers from African countries by rich countries should be viewed as international crime because they are violating human rights of people in Africa. The Government should implement guidelines to keep recruitment companies from enticing health workers away from their local work, and developed countries should adequately compensate less-developed countries for the human resources they have lost.

All the three authors that are Risse, Kukathas and Mills give different reasons for the freedom but they have similar views. Everyone has the right to freedom. For example, at some point this idea is similar to Risse’s argument of terribly underusing resources. If some country is underusing its resources such as, U.S and Canada has the lowest population density than many other countries of the world. Therefore, if some people get an opportunity to live there no one should have any problem with that. This argument also complies with egalitarian and common ownership like morally everybody has an equivalent share of the planet’s overall resources. People should be able to live whatever they want. According to Kukathas, people will get the freedom to sell their labor such as if the workers’ pay as a taxi driver in Canada is more prominent than her pay as a doctor in Bangladesh, productivity necessitates that she works in Canada. Freedom to associate; people can interact with their family, can come for business and work purposes. According to Mills, health workers should have freedom of movement and decision of where they live and work, similarly as any other worker. You cannot restrict them because health workers have rights too.

All the authors give different reasons for the economic argument, but they have similar views. The first impact on immigrants is on the local market economy, large number of people entering into the society can change the balance of the economy which results in high cost of goods. As immigrants would take jobs that might have gone to locals therefore, it will reduce wages. It will also impact on education, health care, welfare and the infrastructure. Immigration would be a problem for the welfare state because the burden would impose on the taxpaying individuals and firms such as services like unemployment relief, old age security and disability benefits. It will also result into tax evasion. As tax avoidance compromises both development and democracy, particularly in developing nations. Since large corporations and rich people have viably avoided taxation, the taxation burden is moved onto ordinary citizens and smaller organizations which results into cuts in social spending, and these cuts can dramatically affect different objectives, such as, developing and maintaining robust democracies. It makes a connection between us and them such as, should citizens have more rights to local jobs than foreigners? Citizens should think for themselves or for the foreigners for their jobs, education and health care system.

According to Kukathas, Brock and Mills, brain drain problem occurs when numerous talented citizens from a specific nation emigrate, hence depleting the nation of laborers with high levels of training and leaving behind the less skilled workers. Brain drain among health professionals is particularly widespread and dangerous for developing countries which results in lack of sufficient health workers. “Countries lose a greater number of nurses consistently than they train, for example, in 2001 Ghana lost 500 nurses, which is more than double the number of new nurses graduated in that year. Billions of dollars of aid that is accessible to address worldwide medical issues, such as, HIV/AIDS, are not being put to use due to the lack of health care professionals. These countries usually have poor health care resources, so the loss of trained health care workers is felt more significantly than it may be in places that are better resource.

Moreover, Risse’s argument for illegal immigration and there should be no borders is contradicting the Kukathas argument for security and nationality. Kukathas concern about the security of citizen because if we permit illegal immigration and there is no border then we are risking the lives of the citizens and the state. For example, the threat of terrorism has added significantly to the security concerns of a number of western states. The modern states have been worried about the security of political systems from foreign threats, smugglers, traffickers, and the security of society against international criminal organizations. Also, if immigration increases the level of social solidarity will breakdown since everybody has diverse comprehension of what their rights and commitment are in this way, if they disagree; at that point it is difficult to establish a standard of social justice. Risse argument for illegal immigrant also contradict with Brock argument of tax avoidance because very few illegal immigrants pay taxes, some people send the earned money back to their home country therefore they don’t contribute in the economy too.

In conclusion, all the authors at some point argued about both the advantages and disadvantages of free and restricted immigration. Some advantages are that wealthy nations will invest more in poorer nations which will improve their condition, create job opportunity, expand the size of the workforce, extend division of labor and create revenue. However, there are some disadvantages the idea that the earth collectively belongs to humans and have the basic responsibility to help everyone, whether they are citizens or not but the state has responsibility to manage who is traveling in and out of its borders so as to ensure the prosperity of its citizens. Therefore, government should make strong laws to regulate illegal immigration which will improve life within the state, ensuring everyone’s interests are adequately protected, proper disclosure and transparency of resources to solve the problem of tax evasion, by offering adequate compensation to the source country, improve the working conditions and pay rate to solve the brain drain problem.

The legal idea of EU citizenship was first systematized in the Maastricht Treaty. In spite of the fact that the idea was not significantly shifted in the Lisbon Treaty, Articles 20-25 TFEU made new political and electoral rights, and above all, they fortified the current privileges of movement and residence officially ensured under the umbrella of EU citizenship by associating them to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality.

Before Maastricht, the early idea of EU citizenship was held for the individuals who partook in the inside market. Pre-Maastricht cases, for example, Cowan and Werner demonstrate the inconsistencies brought about by ECJ decisions while figuring out who was considered to contribute to the market and fell inside the parameters of EU law. In Cowan, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decided that a British native who was victimized in Paris could depend on EC (presently Union) law since he was viewed as an administration beneficiary, while Dr. Werner, a German dental practitioner who rehearsed in Aachen however whose living arrangement was in the Netherlands was not considered to have adequate status as an economic migrant, and didn’t qualify.

The pre-Maastricht idea of citizenship-related with the free movement of workers was connected to business purposes and the movement of individuals to seek financial activity, connected to the inter-state movement for monetary purposes: market citizenship. The ECJ’s test had three appendages: (I) the activity of inter-state movement, (ii) the exercise of financial activity, and (iii) the impediment to inter-state movement.

The codification of EU citizenship in Maastricht was considered fundamental so as to clear up its application. It impacted the advancement of the law of free movement of laborers and the overlap between the two classifications, workers and nationals was solidified in Directive 2004/38 on the free movement for EU natives and their non-EU relatives. The Directive included workers as well as their families, independently employed people, students, and other kinds of non-financially dynamic EU nationals. Spaventa argues that any citizen of a member state falls within the scope of EU citizenship, without having to establish inter-state activity. All that is required is that the person holds the nationality of an MS. This was exhibited in Grzelcyk, where a French national understudy could apply for social help from the Belgian government. It was expressed that Belgium was under a commitment to give help on grounds of non-discrimination by virtue of being an EU native.

The new post-Maastricht position, where non-monetarily dynamic people are incorporated inside the rights offered by EU citizenship makes it hard to accommodate with the ethos of the EU: that the inward market was the center for integration. It turned out to be certain that if the ECJ translated the idea of citizenship as expressed in the Treaties, it would not be conceivable to actualize the new perspective on citizenship. This implied the ECJ began to move far from printed translation so as to withdraw from the inward market and it began to dispense EU citizenship on its own legitimate qualities.

Article 20 of the Lisbon Treaty expresses that EU citizenship is an extra right and it doesn’t supplant national citizenship. Besides, there are restrictions forced under Article 21, which expresses that such confinements are forced by the Treaties as well as by measures adopted to offer impact to the Treaties, and a portion of those measures concern social security. The provisions in Articles 20 and 21 show that EU citizenship is dependent upon an individual having the nationality of an MS in any case and it doesn’t supplant national citizenship in Europe.

In any case, the non-textual interpretation of the Treaties and the expansion of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality came about on a re-elucidation of the confinements under Articles 20 and 21, and expelling decision powers from the MS. A good example can be found in Martinez Sala, where the ECJ expressed that by virtue of Articles 18 and 20(2) TFEU, a jobless Spanish worker was permitted to guarantee benefits in Germany, which had been denied by the German experts. Regardless of being jobless, the ECJ additionally expressed that Maria Martinez Sala could be viewed as a laborer, along these lines likewise growing the meaning of worker under the Treaties. The guideline of non-discrimination enabled the ECJ to circumvent the restricting states of Articles 20 and 21 by discarding the necessity of being financially dynamic and the prerequisite that the individual ought to have adequate assets to abstain from turning into a weight on the social help provision of the host MS.

The ECJ kept on propelling the idea of EU citizenship in Rottmann, where the Court not just expressed that EU citizenship had the ability to present rights upon nationals yet it further expressed that EU citizenship was an issue separate from the inward market. Rottmann likewise raised the issue of whether denial of nationality was an issue for EU law or it was simply an entirely inner issue for the MS. For this situation, Janko Rottmann, an Austrian national had gained German nationality through naturalization so as to stay away from criminal procedures in Austria. The ECJ expressed that the withdrawal of German nationality would prompt accepted and by law statelessness, and accordingly the issue involved EU law and not an entirely inner issue.

Not only is this new approach to EU Citizenship a sensitive political issue, but it has also obscured the idea that EU citizenship was connected to the existence of being a citizen of an MS. Citizenship appears to have turned into a matter of EU competence which is in opposition to the wording of the Treaties. The Ruiz Zambrano judgment demonstrates a reconceptualization of the importance of ‘entirely inside’ matters, and it has expelled forces from the MS when settling on choices on issues of nationality and migration, putting rather those forces in the hands of the general population, by ideals of being ‘EU residents.

All in all, EU citizenship is the essential legitimate status of nationals of EU MS, and it is fit for giving rights to EU residents. Albeit initially the point of EU citizenship was to advance the single market and it was not just connected to the free movement of laborers yet relevant just to the individuals who participated on it, this changed post-Maastricht. Initially, just workers and different classes, for example, service providers or service recipients and those with the right of establishment qualified EU citizenship. The codification of EU citizenship into the Maastricht Treaty realized changes to the idea. Through the decisions of the ECJ and so as to destroy outskirts among MS and along these lines advance federalism, EU citizenship began to procure another measurement through the evacuation of the prerequisite of cross-fringe issues and it turned into an idea equipped for giving rights without anyone else.