This is a question that George Friedman at StratFor asks in his article 'Geopolitics, Nationalism and Dual Citizenship': What is the meaning of citizenship in the 21st century? R.J. Godlewski was just one of several who brought this article to my attention today. R.J. suggested that in light of the illegal immigration situation here in the United States, world citizenship might be the Left's answer to solving the illegal immigration situation here without an actual amnesty.
The American nation was built on immigrants from other nations. Unless they were prepared to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen,” the American enterprise could fall into chaos as immigrants came to the United States to secure the benefits of full citizenship but refused to abandon prior obligations and refused to agree to the obligations and sacrifices the oath demanded. The United States therefore is in a position shared only with a few other immigration-based nations, and it has staked out the most demanding position on naturalization.
This is where culturism enters the picture. I do not believe that we can be Americans and equally be citizens of the world. Nor do I believe that a nation can survive if it's citizens loyalties lie elsewhere, whether that elsewhere is another country or another political system as in Islam. As a nation, and as states within that nation, we have not only the right, but the responsibility to define what our culture is and to demand that those who live here want to cultivate the continuation of that culture.
... However long a nation exists and whatever its origins, a nation is founded on what I’ve called elsewhere “love of one’s own,” a unique relationship with the community in which an individual is born or to which he chose to come. That affinity is the foundation of a nation.
If that dissolves, the nation dissolves, something that has happened on numerous occasions in history. If a nation disappears, the international system begins to behave differently. And if nations in general lose their identity and cohesion, massive shifts might take place. [snip]
The state is much clearer: It is the political directorate of the nation. How the leaders are selected and how they govern varies widely. The relationship of the state to the nation also varies widely. All nations do not have states. [snip]
The relation to the nation is personal. The relation to the state is legal. We can see this linguistically in the case of the United States.
Plainly, I do not believe that Barack Obama and some others in this nation, at this time, approve of what this nation was founded upon, what this nation has been over the past years, nor where this nation should be headed. They want to change America, and so far they have made a good start.
What we must do is our duty as citizens of this nation and as citizens of each individual state in this nation -- fight to preserve our culture.
What is the meaning of citizenship in the 21st century? It should be the same as it was when this nation was founded, but unfortunately some want to change that. Stand up and speak out. Don't be like the whiny RINO's in congress who go along to get along while the party in control leads us off a cliff.