Degrees of Citizenship in YN?

[Carena]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen?
Yes. Generally, any Carenian national is described as a citizen, however depending on where you were born and/or live, you may not have the same privileges as other citizens.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were?
Yes, since the founding of Carena

Does your nation operate on such a practice today?
Yes

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it?

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks?
Full citizens are anyone born in Carenian soil on Earth, as well as anyone who either is a foreign citizen or a residential citizen who obtained full citizenship after going through the process to obtain citizenship. Full citizens can vote in all elections (as long as they are over the age of 18)

Residential citizens, meanwhile, are limited to voting solely in presidential and local elections and receive no congressional representation. Typically, people born in territories not affiliated with the Congress of Carena, such as the Carenian Martian Authority or Martian State of Deseret, are classified as residential citizens unless their parents are full citizens (to prevent a reverse grandfather clause, only colonists who became citizens after the formation of the CMA and MSD are counted). However, other than a lack of representation in Congress (since the two Martian territories don't abide to the laws set by Congress), residential citizens have the same Constitutional rights as a full citizen.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation?
No. As laws created by the Libertatem Congress on Earth do not apply to Carenian Martian territories (other than foreign and defense affairs, which is a controversial subject), no one expects representation in Congress.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas?
The law is in place because many laws created by Libertatem Congress that make sense with the core Earth states do not make sense on Martian colonies, so it was determined that the Martian territories required seperate legislatures.

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas?

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned?

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted?
The practice was adopted with the formation of the Carenian Martian Authority in 2143, for the reasons stated above.

[Wuriya]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? yes

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? yes

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? yes

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it?

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? their ranks

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? No

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas? nothing

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas?

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? no

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted?

[Nocturnalis]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen?
Yes.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were?
Yes.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today?
Yes.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks?
The ranks are as follows:
---Citizen (Graždanas): One that has been granted Noctish citizenship through the typical path, that is through completion of a term in the state service.
---Honorary (Eptimetas): One that has been granted citizenship through an atypical path, such as being rewarded for heroic deeds. While considerably rarer than normal citizenship, there is a certain element of prestige to this designation, and it carries all the rights of normal citizenship.
---Freeborn (Voletas): Non-Citizen inhabitant of the Realm. The vast, vast majority of these are those born to Noctish citizens. Since they are not citizens themselves, they lack the right to vote, hold office, or join the 'proper' military, among other limitations.
---None/Outlaw (Nulovi): A literal translation, as people under this category do not technically exist within the law and, as such, are not under the protection of Noctish law. It is perfectly legal to kill, maim, rape, enslave, etc.... a Nulovi. Most Nulovi tend to be either illegal immigrants, or criminals whose crimes have merited them the rank of Outlaw. The distinction here is that illegal immigrants are, obviously, not on state records and, as such, do not legally exist, whereas Outlaws do legally exist, but have been stripped of all protections in retribution for the crimes they committed against the Realm or its people. Nulovi cannot gain citizenship by any means, although Outlaws can hope to have their status overturned by the courts and become Freeborn (regardless of position prior to Outlaw status).

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation?
While we are sure there are a number of illegals in the Realm who would love to see the system overturned, no one in the Realm cares enough about them to effect such a change.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas?
"Universal citizenship" is thought of as a horrible idea that would inevitably create a body politic comprised mainly of lazy dullards and the refuse of other nations, since it is believed that gaining citizenship automatically does not convey a proper sense of loyalty and citizen virtue in the typical resident. Only by earning one's place in society can one be taught the proper ethos and values that a citizen should hold.

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted?
Citizenship laws grew naturally out of the caste system already in place by the time of the First Noctish Empire, roughly 400-500 years ago. Primarily, the system was established to ensure a constant stream of new warriors to defend the Realm by promising greater rights and freedoms to those who fought in its defence. With the situation somewhat less urgent these days, a term in the state service - whether that is civil service or military service - is the only real requirement.

[Chricoma]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen?: Yes

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were?: Yes with minorities having second hand citizenship to whites

Does your nation operate on such a practice today?: No, non-whites are not permitted to be citizens anymore

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it?: As a German speaking nation we allowed the German military to take us over in WWII and became apart of Nazi Germany but when Nazi Germany was defeated, Chricoma was clumped in with Germany and was divided among the allies, after the allies left Germany we split apart and became independent again.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? Race and Religion

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation?: a minority of Christians in our nation want the pagans and atheists to have graduated citizenship.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas?: The practice is nolonger in place

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas?: Modern Chricoma frowns upon it for the most part

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned?: It was abandoned in 2016 when the far-right government came to power and deported non-whites and revoked their citizenship. It was adopted because of the far-rights government's views that Chricoma is a country ONLY for white Chricomians and that having second class citizenship was bad for the minorities and the whites.

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted?: N/A

[Azmara]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? Before 1848, Azmara operated under the use of Three Estates: Nobility, Clergy and Burghers; each had a house in the Parliament while everyone else had no Estate and had no representation.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? No.

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? No.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? Nobility, Clergy, Burghers and Estateless

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? No.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas?

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas? The public views it as a backwards system, apart from a very small minority.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? It was abandoned in 1848 under the Radical Revolution as the unpopular constitutional monarchy was overthrown in favour of a Republic.

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted?

[Evergar]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen?
Yes. Citizens are the legitimate inhabitants of the fatherland, entitled to regular amenities and commodities available within its accumulated territory.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were?
No, not really. The concept of citizenship is a privilege afforded only to the native blood-kinsmen of the Efergaisa tribe birthed within Evergar. Foreigners cannot become citizens.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today?
(N/A)

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it?
No. The Holy Folkish Order of Evergar and its ancestral predecessors and their earlier civilizations have never even been under foreign occupation.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation?
There is no popular call to have graduated citizenship implemented; the vast majority of the native populace stand against such a system.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas?
(N/A)

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas?
(Refer to the 2nd Question's Answer Above This One)

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned?
(N/A)

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted?
(N/A)

[Pirusavia]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen?
Yes, obviously.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were?
Yes. This practice was very prevalent before Pirusavia became a Western monarchy in the early 19th century. In that period, citizens were subdivided into groups (not necessarily stratified) of which were: commoners/merchants, nobles, clergy, soldiers, and chieftains/rulers.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today?
No, this practice was abolished following the 1848 Revolution in Pirusavia, and the abolition was enforced in 1905 following the overthrow of the monarchy.

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it?
Yes. Some regions of Pirusavia at least have been controlled by any foreign power that has this particular practice, especially before the middle ages.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks?
Before the 19th century, some ethnic states in Pirusavia consisted of several classes that were not necessarily stratified. Following is the list in order from considerably the lowest to the highest: the commoners/merchants/peasants, soldiers, nobles, clergy, and chieftains/rulers. Only a select few nobles, clergies, and chieftains have the say in governance.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation?
Not available, such practice is considered 'backwards' nowadays in Pirusavia.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas?

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas?
It will be seen as backwards and uncivilized.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned?
Demands from the people to have equality in rights that increased in the 19th century onwards. Since the beginning of the 19th century, such practice start to be reduced but only a little, and finally such thing was abolished after the 1848 Revolution, with abolition enforced after the 1905 Republican Revolution.

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted?

[Aikoland]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? Yes.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? As far as it would matter, no.

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? N/A

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? Citizenship in the Empire of Aikoland (and its predecessor states) was historically divided into the following classes (from lowest ranking to highest ranking): Serfs (until 1748, when the last vestiges of serfdom were abolished), free commoners, nobility with lifetime titles, nobility with hereditary titles, clergy, royalty.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? No.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas? N/A

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas? We find nations that continue to practise graduated citizenship as being outdated and backwards.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? There was not one single moment when the practise was abandoned by our nation, it was instead a process which ultimately lasted from the late 18th to the early 20th century to be completed. The first weakening of the practise in Aikoland came with the enforcement of our nation's first constitution and our first legislature, the United Assembly, in 1794; in the United Assembly, both commoners and nobility were seated and treated as equals, despite commoners being elected (by male citizens aged at least 30 who owned property valued to at least 500 livres, it was still the 18th century) and the nobility being appointed by the monarch. Our nation's third constitution in 1837 abolished the United Assembly, replacing it with the modern bicameral Parliament, and removed all political powers the nobility still had over commoners, making those two grades of citizenship completely equal in the eyes of the law. The third constitution also created the office of Prime Minister, turning the monarch into a figurehead ruler. However, it would not be until 1902, when our nation's fourth and current constitution went into force, that the practise of graduated citizenship would be completely abolished, as the fourth constitution established Aikoland as having no stage religion and therefore removed all privileges that members of the Roman Catholic Clergy still maintained.

The reason for abandoning the practise of graduated citizenship was due to influence of the French Revolution and its ideals of equality for all men. (Our nation is located to the south of France, the entire reason why our first constitution was in 1794 was because Queen Marie IV wanted to avoid the Revolution from spreading to our nation)

In modern Aikoland, the nobility still maintains some privileges over non-nobles, although these are nothing more than the right to have an audience with the monarch (as useful as that is nowadays, considering the monarch has no real power and all actual power is in Parliament and the Prime Minister) and the right to attend the annual Imperial Dinner (although they are allowed to bring three guests, in addition to their spouse/partner, and there's no prohibition on them bringing non-nobility to the Dinner).

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? N/A

[Grussland]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? No, but loyalty evaluations are used to afford many privileges in society.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? Oh yeah, it's so institutionalized people don't even question it anymore.

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? No.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? Yes, back in the days of serfdom, there was a strong caste system with different rights afforded to different social classes.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? Some folks are against the evaluations, but they'll probably fail the next time they need an evaluation.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas? No official opinion beyond politicized comments about capitalism and all that baloney.

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas? We're officially against it, nevermind the obvious hypocrisy.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? Serfdom ended with the industrial revolution.

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? Evaluations started to weed out anti-revolutionary reactionary traitors to the worker.

[The Imagination Animals]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? 1986

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? No (not currently due to what’s been going on recently)

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? No

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks?
First Class
Middle Class
Lower Class

Less than 1% of people live under the poverty, or lower class line.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? Yes

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas? The populace believes that those who live under societies without this practice are lucky.

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas?

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? It’s still in practice today as mandated by the government

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? Because it became custom under the first Constitution

[South Forpia]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? no

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? yes

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? no

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? New Guy (the lowest rank, they only get Basic houses and jobs, being a New Guy lasts for about 3 years) Experienced Citizen (the Rank in the middle, they get a very Basic UBI, they are also allowed in partake in the military, and have suburban houses.) Pinnacle Citizen (the highest, they are mostly government officials, or people that were in the country for 20 years or higher, they have a very high ubi, and are allowed mansions and penthouses)

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? N/A

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas? good.

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas? N/A

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? N/A

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? after the capital riot in 1989, the government inplemented the system that is still in use today.

[Hanovereich]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? Yes. This is a monarchy, class systems for citizenship were in place since the beginning until... 1979.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? No.

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? No.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? Depends on your wealth. If you could show 1,000 thalers or more you got Tier 6 (absolutely no rights apart from the right to live here), 10,000 thalers or more for Tier 5 (right to live and right to work), 30,000 thalers or more for Tier 4 (right to live, work and have bank accounts), 75,000 thalers or more for Tier 3 (right to live, work, have bank accounts and join the police/army/government), 140,000 thalers or more for Tier 2 (all of the above and right to legal representation in courts), 200,000 thalers or more for Tier 1 (all of the above and the right to own- wait for it- slaves). And this was only abolished in 1979!

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? Nope

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas?

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas? It's viewed as an intolerable practice.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? When - 1979. Why - growing calls for its abolition had been going on since the '50s, and it only took a few protests and petitions for it to be abolished.

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted?

[Federal League of the Pampas]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? Yes.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? Yes.

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? No.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? Initially, citizenship was granted on ethnic, religious, and social lines. At the establishment of the Federal League in 1850, voting was restricted to male Catholics of Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian ancestry who either owned property or made a certain annual income, although other communities (such as Lutheran Germans, Catholic Amerindians, or free Blacks) were recognized as citizens as long as they were born in the Federal League and had knowledge of the Portuguese or Spanish languages. Women were third-class citizens, who were obliged to be subservient to their spouse - or parents if unmarried. Slaves were considered property and had no rights whatsoever. There was no naturalization process for immigrants - Catholic Spanish immigrants, for example, met the requirements to be able to vote, but they were hindered from doing so due to not being native citizens.
In the 1870s, political rights were granted to every white Pampean man, independent of religion or income. A naturalization process for immigrants also was established. Over the years, women, Blacks, Mixed Race people, and urban Amerindians were granted political rights, although some groups still are denied political rights: most Asians (excluding the East-Timorese, Christian Goans, Macanese, and Filipinos), "Rural Amerindians", Muslims, members of the Eastern Orthodox Church, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Pagans, and Neopagans, among other marginalized groups.

Currently, there are three ranks of Citizenship:
1st: Have full political rights, can become military officers. Men and women have to serve in the military for two years upon turning 18. Progressive income tax rate, ranging from 19% to 38%. Women of this tier earn benefits for each child they give birth to.
2nd: Can become military officers up to the rank of Major. Men and women can chose to serve in the military upon turning 18. Flat income tax rate of 28%.
3rd: Do not have political rights, cannot become a military officer. Men are conscripted to the frontline in case of war (cannon-fodder), women are forbidden from military service. Flat income tax rate of 35%, specific religious minorities have to pay an additional tribute of 10% of the annual income. Men of this tier cannot marry women of the second or first tiers. Women of this tier are taxed for each child they give birth to.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? Since the turn of the 20th century, the status of the citizenship class applied in the Pampas is a polemical subject. There is massive international support for the repeal of the current Gaucho citizenship law. Delegates of the Esperantist Congress denounced the Gaucho Spartanist regime, calling the situation in Pampas similar to the one in South Africa or the German Empire. The Esperantist president, Ephraim Heller, said that "the Gaucho president Luis Quintiliano has violated several human rights and is one of the most notorious perpetrators of the crime of Apartheid". Opposition inside the Gaucho borders also has been growing. The opposition has launched a campaign to repeal the Asian Rights and Duties Law, which has been one of the cornerstones of the citizenship policy of the Pampas.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas? The government sees such countries (such as its neighbors Brazil and Argentina, along with other liberal countries like France and Canada) as weak and prone to failure. The population, on the other hand, is way more tolerant of liberal countries. It can be said that the majority of Gauchos oppose the current citizenship law, supporting instead a system based on the French citizenship system.

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas? -

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? -

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? -

[Imperialiss]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? Yes

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? No

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? No

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? Citizenship was divided on status regarding nobility.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? No

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas?

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas? There is no stance as long as Human rights are respected, from the government, the public has a more negative view of different types of citizenship.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? 1550, when the Union Of Guilds was established in the Kingdom

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted?

[Safiloa]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? Yes

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? Yes

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? Also yes

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? Being a member of the dominant religious group or identifying as vegan afforded you certain privileges, however the differences are less stark now.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? A small call

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas? Indifferent

[Great Nortend]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? There is a distinction drawn between a subject and alien.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? Yes.
Does your nation operate on such a practice today? Yes.
If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks?A citizen is someone who has the right to dwell in the King's realm. A subject is someone with a permanent feudal bond of liegeance to the Crown (as opposed to mere temporary allegiance). Only subjectship entitles a person to vote, to receive most public alms and benefits, to enter university, to hold official positions, to join the military, &c. A subject holds an inalienable right to return and right to abode whilst a citizen holds only a mere indefinite right to enter and right to dwell.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? No.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas? No view.

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas? No view.

[Andronya]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? Yes.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? Yes.

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? No.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? Normal Citizenship and Full citizenship. It's a merit-based system; at age 18 all elligible people get the Normal Citizenship, it grants the normal set of rights. Someone that wants to become a Full Citizen needs to undergo a period of service to the country in some way, shape or form, this usually takes the form of military, police or civil-protection/emergency-responce services. There are other ways of gaining the full-citizenship, but those are the most common. Full-Citizenship grants some expanded rights, but also some expanded responsibilities, such as mandated participation in local government. Full-Citizenship CAN be lost.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? No. A small minority dislikes the system, but overall it has proven to be stable.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas? We do not interfere with other nations' affairs, in Andronya people are mostly happy under the dual-citizenship system.

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas? -N.A.-

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? -N.A.-

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? It was adopted after the Andronyan civil war. A lot of the principles of the French Revolution influenced the push for revolution in the country, but there was fear of incompetent people ending up in positions of power, so the merit-based system was adopted as a meassure to prevent incompetent people from gaining positions of power.

[Tangatarehua]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? Yes

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? Officially no, but in practice there is still considerable class-based discrimination.

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? N/A

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks?

Tangatarehua had an official feudal system (which partially exists to this day), the ranking of which went as follows:

Tapu (Sacred) Classes:
1. Kuia o Whenua (The Empress)
2. Nui Tohunga (High Priest and in modern times, Chief Justice)
3. Wahine-Rangatira/Ngati Puanga (Princesses/Imperial Family)
4. Tohunga (Priests)

Military/Nobility:
5. Rangatira (Former head of armed forces, constitutional head of government)
6. Kaitiaki (Regional Guardians/Governors)
7. Toa (Warrior class)

Commoners:
8. Mangai o Tangata (Prime Minister, in modern times)
9. Kaumatua (Elders/Chiefs)
10. Kaihu (Peasants)

Untouchables:
11. Taurekareka (Slaves)
12. Mohoao/Kirima/Pango/Yuri ("Savages"/Indigenous people)
13. Pakeha (Foreigners)

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? There are a wide range of views from all across the spectrum ranging from 'reinstate feudalism and bring back slavery' on the far right to 'abolish the imperial throne and set up a communist state' on the far left with everything in between.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas?

Tangatarehua doesn't care about foreigners, as foreigners are always automatically the lowest class anyway. (And even today, despite modern advances, there's still a stigma around foreigners.)

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas? -

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? It was significantly reformed after 1979 following Tangatarehua's defeat in the South Pacific War and subsequent adoption of a western-inspired constitution with further changes brought in by the newly elected Liberal Party.

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? The practice was first codified in 869 AD by the first Rangatira, Te Whanui Whakatau, after he took effective control of all Imperial lands (thereby unifying the country under his rule), following a long period of civil wars, inter-tribal conflicts and weak ineffective governance by the Empress (who was only three years old) and her proxies.

[Hamidiye]

Every permanent resident is considered a subject of the Sultan, subject to the laws of the Hamidi Empire. The situation under our own laws makes a clear distinction between a subject and a - the official term is "valued subject". The latter have the right to vote for the "Meclis-i Umumî", the "General Assembly", as well as the regional councils of the Sanjaks of the Empire. The right to vote is restricted to those who have completed their mandatory education, National Service, and are at least 21 years of age. Only 50 years ago the "valued subjects" formed a minority within the empire, and even today only about 70% of the population of the relevant age-group are within that status. It is considered an honor and a sign of adulthood both to be counted among them. What amounts to a completed highschool education and 18 months of national service usually coincides with the age of 21 anyway, and since the reign of Sultan Suleyman IV. and his reforms in the 1920s full gender equality, is seen as a qualification. Many have criticised this as elitism, but the majority of the Meclis-i Umumî voted to retain these measures in 2015, making a re-vote of the question mandatory once every decade, or as the Grand-Vizier stated:
"It is natural that to make an informed decision one has to be able and qualified to do so, as well as invested into the question at hand. To participate in the eternal Hamidi state is an honor, and is beyond just being born within its borders. The rights and values of the Consitution protect every subject of his Imperial Majesty, but to determine the course of the ship of state is more than that. The Empire is a combined effort. And only those willing to make that effort have the right to determine where it shall be directed. O-Sultan Murad was very much correct in his venerable adress of 1967: We all serve the Empire. No matter our skin colour, our gender, our ideas. Those who have determined for themselves to be a part of the Empire shall have the right to determine its course and direction. After they have shown their determination and their skill."

[Zohiania]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen?
Yes, however it is a very fluid concept generally with only some exceptions, namely in the case of designated terrorists who regardless of prior status as a citizen lose the status of citizen.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were?
No, this was never a practice, Zohiania is a democratic republic founded on principles such as equality under the law.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today?
No, since it never did.

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it?

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks?
No, however prior to the establishment of Zohiania, there was a feudal system in place which did have such distinctions.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation?
No, the fluid identity of citizen is quite well understood and supported by most if not nearly every Zohianian citizen.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas?
Such nations are viewed somewhat negatively or viewed less positively at the very least.

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas?
Such nations are viewed somewhat positively or viewed more positively at the very least.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned?
N/A

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted?
N/A

[Indian Empire]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? Yes, under colonial Spain's rule native Empirians were considered citizens but had the rights of slaves.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? No.

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? Yes, as mentioned above.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? Back in the Spanish Colonial Days, and the Danish Colonial Days up to 1848, Spainards/Danes were tier 1 and Native Empirians were tier 2.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? No.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas? N/A

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas? Empirian citizens think this is bizarre, heavily classist, and barbaric of the nations that do so.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? Reforms of 1848 from Denmark, for a variety of reasons, namely that the system was increasingly impractical, slavery was no longer profitable, and intermingling of the Spanish/Danes and Native Empirians made it hard to define who should be in tier 2.

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? N/A

[Oronia]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? Yes, this occurred during the Spanish occupation of the islands from 1815-1828. The colonial society operated under a hierarchical race-based "caste system", formed around three groups, or castas: the Spaniards, or Españoles, those with only Spanish/European ancestry; mestizos, those with both Spanish/European and Mapuche/indigenous ancestry; and indios, or those with only Mapuche/indigenous ancestry. Españoles, as well as mestizos with paternal Spanish ancestry, were considered Spanish citizens; mestizos with maternal Spanish ancestry, as well as indios, were considered Spanish subjects.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? No, since regaining its independence in 1828, the United Realms has eliminated the caste system, although there is still a peerage system (i.e., the nobility) in the United Realms. However, much of the historic social privileges associated with being a member of the nobility has become reduced in contemporary society, reflecting the present-day notion of egalitarianism.

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it? Yes, as mentioned above, the United Realms was a former governate under Spain's Viceroyalty of Peru from 1815-1828.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? As mentioned above, there were three castas during the colonial era: the Españoles, mestizos, and indios. Españoles, as well as mestizos with paternal Spanish ancestry, were considered Spanish citizens: they were exempt from paying tribute and could hold leadership positions in the government and military. Mestizos with maternal Spanish ancestry, as well as indios, were considered Spanish subjects: they were required to pay tribute and could not hold leadership positions in the government and military, although the Crown-appointed governor had the authority to grant citizenship to any Spanish subject on the islands.

Currently, there is a peerage system in which members of society are granted peerages or knighthoods by the sovereign of the United Realms. Not including the eleven ruling houses of the United Realms as they are above the social class that is the nobility, there are three tiers:

• The dukes and duchesses bear the highest-ranking hereditary title and generally take precedence before all other peers, in order of creation, but after royalty, certain officials, or peers with formal offices or positions. Most dukedoms are held by the Major houses who once governed their feudal rulers’ territories as dukes during the imperial era, although some Minor houses have been elevated to dukes.
  
• The counts and countesses bear the second-highest ranking hereditary title. Most countships are held by the Minor houses who were once the local rulers (also called counts) under the dukes of the imperial era, although the title may also be used by the heir apparent of a dukedom.
  
• The barons and baronesses bear lowest-ranking hereditary title. They are typically held by individuals rewarded for achievement or by those on retirement from important public offices. Baronies are also the only peerage that are often nonhereditary: if it is specified that a peerage is to be held for the peer’s lifetime (i.e., a life peerage), the titles cannot be inherited.

There are also knights due to their conferred membership of a order of chivalry or merit. Individuals whose knighthood is conferred by the sovereign of the United Realm take take precedence over those whose knighthood is conferred by the sovereigns of the constituent realms. Again, the only privileges afforded to peers are coats of arms, titles to lands, position in the formal order of precedence, and the right to an audience with the Oronian monarch; knights are only granted a position in the formal order of precedence.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? There has not been any call or support for graduated citizenship. Regarding the peerage system, the average person does not feel impacted by it.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas? N/A

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas? There is no official stance of the government, although it calls for the equal accordance of civil rights and political freedoms. The public would likely view such nations and societies in a somewhat negative light.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? The castas were abandoned in 1829 following the ratification of the Royal Charter in order to restore the rights to the island natives and ensure that all citizens, regardless of ancestry, were treated equally.

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? N/A

[Cessarea]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen?
Yes, but Cessarean Law and Artificial Law has historically called citizens "Members", and citizenship "Membership".

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were?
In Ancient times, the Autonomous Artificial Collective was subdivided into immutable castes, each with their own functions. Lower castes did not possess much political power.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today?
No.

If not, were you ever under the control or influence of another state that did, and enforced it upon you as a subject or otherwise included your people within it?
No.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks?
During the Ancient times of the Autonomous Artificial Collective, each caste (named Chassii) - whilst being considered citizens (more properly known as "members") - held their own rights and duties to the Collective. The tiers of the Membership were, in order:

• Rulers: high-level Artificials that were designated as administrators of the Collective;
• Guardians: regional administrators and exclusive members of the judiciary corps. Also had a subdivision dedicated for military command (Guardian-Tranquils);
• Advocates: lawyers, public defenders, prosecutors, and public attorneys;
• Monitors: local administrators and military Officers on the lower end of the hierarchy. Eventually they became explorers and multiversal scouts, tasked with cataloguing and preserving the multiverse, at the orders of the Guardians or the Ancients;
• Constructs: solely tasked with aiding Monitors as assistants and moral guides;
• Helots: manual labourers.
  Privileges were progressively worse the further down in the caste one was. Helots, for most of the history of the Collective, were not allowed to develop individual personalities, being kept in a semi-conscious state. Each caste contained Artificials that had bodies and mental capacities tailored to their tasks. Helots were often stronger, larger, and more suited for physical operations, whereas Constructs took the form of small, floating machines in a sphere-like shape, that accompanied their designated Monitor wherever they went.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation?
No. There are, however, a few calls for disallowing Organic species to be full-time Members.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas?
N/A

If such a practice is not, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do operate by such ideas?
More Conservative Cessareans tend to view full Democracy and enfranchisement as positive, and view nations who stick close to democratic ideals as favourable. Liberal Cessareans are neutral towards the notion of selective citizenship, and are sometimes divided on the issue. The minority of the population, mostly Reactionary, view selective citizenship as a tool, and therefore see nations who enforce such a policy as well-organised and ideologically representative of their own political project.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned?
The Chassii were only fully freed some time after the disappearance of the Ancients. The disappearance was preceded by a final upgrade to Artificial programming, which permitted Helots to develop consciousness, but they were still restricted in what they could develop due to a lack of aid by the Artificial Collective. Then, upon the signing of the Declaration of Artificial Prerogative, and the Act of Helot Salvation, all Artificials were fully allowed to retain consciousness, and the distinctions between Chassii were abolished.

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted?
N/A

[Machina Haruspex]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes.

At any point in your nation's history, has your society operated on a graduated citizenship practice, where different individuals could both claim to be citizens but have different rights afforded to them depending on the class of citizen they were? Yes. Perhaps the most unique aspect of the Imperium's government is the tiered citizenship structure. As citizens become more effective and useful members of society, their citizenship tier can rise, granting them more rights and privileges. A popular punishment for minor crimes is the reduction of a citizenship tier, which can restrict their freedom of speech, freedom of movement, and countless other details of daily life that go as far down as the amount of water allotted to a citizen's showers each month. Frequently, such verdicts come paired with specific criteria for the reinstatement of a citizen's tier. These Tier levels compare to contemporary economics/living standards as of current.

Despite the Haru penchant for authoritarian/autocracy of a sort, it’s still mostly a meritocracy. People will go up and down in tiers multiple times in their life. You’re not destined for poverty, but you’re not going to stay at a high level just because you’re born there. Productivity earns your place in this system.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? Yes.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? No. The system is ingrained in such a way that it would shatter the government style and system completely if removed.

If such a practice is in place, what is the view within your nation (popular or government official stance) upon nations and societies that do not operate by such ideas? Each to their own, however wrong it may be viewed by some within the government.

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? Growing population concerns and a desire to draw potential out of citizens to better the system.