But why, or perhaps more importantly, why should this be the case? Why should citizenship (which is itself an arbitrary legal distinction made by the government) mean a person is more deserving of anything than non-citizen residents? It's not like naturalized citizens did anything to earn their citizenship.
[1] https://www.usa.gov/become-us-citizen#item-36212
> The decision to apply is a significant one. Citizenship offers many benefits and equally important responsibilities. By applying, you are demonstrating your commitment to this country and our form of government.
> Support and defend the Constitution. Stay informed of the issues affecting your community. Participate in the democratic process. Respect and obey federal, state, and local laws. Respect the rights, beliefs, and opinions of others. Participate in your local community. Pay income and other taxes honestly, and on time, to federal, state, and local authorities. Serve on a jury when called upon. Defend the country if the need should arise.
https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-right...
This is just like the NIMBYs. Work to deny people the opportunity to become "stakeholders," then use your success in doing so to claim their needs don't matter.
The birth lottery is a poor indicator of deservingness. This behavior, on the other hand, is bright-as-day proof of its absence.
People ought to have a vested interest in the place they work, and live. I know of no better way to do that than citizenship.
Concern about the "challenges" of too many brown people in your country is usually just called "racism."
If you have nothing to offer a country, why would that country accept you except under extenuating circumstances (ie political asylum)? You must be able to contribute in a meaningful way.
EDIT: Shifting from a biological to a cultural explanation for why certain racial groups have inferior/unacceptable behaviors doesn't diminish the level of racism. Country of origin dominates any measure of individual assimilation w.r.t your chances in the immigration system, so it's not clear that shifting the rhetorical justification changes anything either.
Of course that country still exists. We're all sitting here benefitting from it while we kick the ladder on everyone else.
Maybe not, if the selection process were primarily concerned with individual merit. But it isn't. We decide which races to allow as residents or citizens, then throw the individuals into a lottery, with good odds for white countries and bad odds for brown ones. Discriminating on ancestry or proxies for ancestry (like nationality) to keep underprivileged groups down and privileged groups comfortable is immoral. So is denying others the same opportunities benefitted from merely because they came later.
Would your own family tree's entrypoints to the US pass your test?
That is almost always threatened and almost always never happens.
As toomuchtodo suggests, this lassez-faire culture with business needs to stop. Every year it's a different scandal, we need to stop tip-toeing around business. They rely on a nation's education system, transport, internet infrastructure etc, they didn't come from nothing. China and India in these respects are doing very well, and I'm sure their citizens are thankful.
What? There has been a huge amount of offshoring in the past few decades. Not sure you can say it never happens.
A company only exists because a nation state allows it. That formation can be revoked at any time.
Companies should obey the law, or leave and be prohibited from operating in the jurisdiction (China does this successfully).
Edit: My apologies for reiterating this here (I mention it in a child comment), I don’t want to be verbose but I also don’t want to comment all over the place and risk a throttling flag: If you are a company and relocate, a country has many tools at it’s disposal to retaliate, and they should be used when necessary (see how the US almost drove ZTE to insolvency).