Degrees of Citizenship in YN?

[The Land of the Ephyral]

Whilst in the modern day we tend to think of citizenship as that of a singular construct, you are either a citizen or not, this has not been the case for most of human civilised history and in fact many nations today tend to operate, even if unofficially, on a graduated citizenship basis.

One of the best examples of this in the ancient world might be the Roman Republic. Full citizens of the Roman state were afforded all legal rights and protections, but divided between those that were permitted to vote and those that could not. This could be along a dichotomy of residency, as transferring from one city to another may not guarantee you keep your level of citizenship, or the dichotomy between men and women. As women were not included in the political processes of the state, they were not afforded the right of voting or running for office, which placed them in the lower category of full citizen.

Further down was the Latin Right extended to the Latin League, which afforded some legal rights but not others, and restricted the right to vote, extending partial citizenship. You then also had the idea of the Socii, or 'allies'. Some of the differences here are that Roman citizens could not be crucified or tortured, whilst the same right was not extended to these groups. Furthermore, a Roman citizen sentenced to death for a non-treasonous crime could commute it to exile, and had the right to have a capital case be judged in Rome itself.

Other examples exist such as Athenian native citizens with the right to vote, citizens without, and foreign citizens who chose to live in the Athenian state.

Today, nations in the real world such as Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and much of what we consider Western Civilisation afford the same rights, protections, and guarantees to all those with the legal ability to call themselves citizens of the nation. However this is by no means a rule that all nations follow and as shown, most did not.

---

Code: Select all

[b]Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen?[/b]

[b]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?[/b]

[b]Does your nation operate on such a practice today?[/b]

[b]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?[/b]

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

EDIT: Corrected 'human history' to 'human civilised history'.

EDIT 2: Added a question inquiring as to what the actual citizenship divisions are. I apologise for that mistake as I had written it before, but corrected to a code format and forgot to put it back in.

[Palagaria]

Whilst in the modern day we tend to think of citizenship as that of a singular construct, you are either a citizen or not, this has not been the case for most of human civilised history and in fact many nations today tend to operate, even if unofficially, on a graduated citizenship basis.

One of the best examples of this in the ancient world might be the Roman Republic. Full citizens of the Roman state were afforded all legal rights and protections, but divided between those that were permitted to vote and those that could not. This could be along a dichotomy of residency, as transferring from one city to another may not guarantee you keep your level of citizenship, or the dichotomy between men and women. As women were not included in the political processes of the state, they were not afforded the right of voting or running for office, which placed them in the lower category of full citizen.

Further down was the Latin Right extended to the Latin League, which afforded some legal rights but not others, and restricted the right to vote, extending partial citizenship. You then also had the idea of the Socii, or 'allies'. Some of the differences here are that Roman citizens could not be crucified or tortured, whilst the same right was not extended to these groups. Furthermore, a Roman citizen sentenced to death for a non-treasonous crime could commute it to exile, and had the right to have a capital case be judged in Rome itself.

Other examples exist such as Athenian native citizens with the right to vote, citizens without, and foreign citizens who chose to live in the Athenian state.

Today, nations in the real world such as Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and much of what we consider Western Civilisation afford the same rights, protections, and guarantees to all those with the legal ability to call themselves citizens of the nation. However this is by no means a rule that all nations follow and as shown, most did not.

---

Code: Select all

[b]Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen?[/b]

[b]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?[/b]

[b]Does your nation operate on such a practice today?[/b]

[b]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?[/b]

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

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

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

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

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

---

EDIT: Corrected 'human history' to 'human civilised history'.

Palagaria has two
1: Born Palagarian (full citizen)(with at least one Palagari parent)
2: Illegal immigrant who hasn't been detained and sent to a Detention Center yet

[The Atlantean Islands]

We have three:

1. Full citizen - A full citizen is either natural born or naturalised.
2. Immigrant - This degree refers to people who legally immigrated to Atlantis. An immigrant is given a documentation ID. He or she must stay for at least three years, attend Atlantean culture classes and pass an Atlantean culture integration test to become a full citizen. He or she has the right to find employment and own property (albeit limited), but he or she cannot vote or hold public office. Also, while able to have an Atlantean Welfare Bank account, he or she would be unable to reap the full benefits.
3. Illegal immigrant - Examples of this include the refugees that has plagued Europe or tourists who overstay their visa.

Due to the existence of a second caste, we don't take lightly to cultural cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism.

[Fatatatutti]

No.

[Estainia]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? One is, or is not, an Imperial.

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? One is, or is not an Imperial.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? One is, or is not, an Imperial.

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? One is, or is not, an Imperial.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? One is, or is not, an Imperial.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? One is, or is not, an Imperial.

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? One is, or is not, an Imperial.

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? One is, or is not, an Imperial.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? One is, or is not, an Imperial.

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? One is, or is not, an Imperial.

[Kirav]

Yes, as a matter of fact. The Kiravian Federacy does have several different classes of citizenship and nationality.

Kiravian nationals (térnaxuya), or more specifically bare/mere nationals (miśgatérnaxuya) are people who have Kiravian nationality and are entitled to hold Kiravian passports and receive Kiravian consular services abroad. These include both general nationals (ovsitérnaxuya) and Kiravian Nationals (Overseas) (átrafarax-kiravitérnaxuya). KN(O) status is typically granted either to members of Coscivian or Celtic minority populations in other countries (particularly those subject to state repression), or to individuals in special circumstances on the advice of the Prime Executive, usually on humanitarian grounds. General nationals have right of abode in the Kiravian Federacy, cannot be deported or stripped of their nationality, and can travel freely through the Federacy and its external possessions. They hold the same passports as Kiravian citizens and metics, and as such enjoy the same visa-waiver and other privileges enjoyed by Kiravian citizens and metics in other countries. They can serve in the Kiravian military, but cannot hold officers' commissions or warrants. They cannot vote or stand for public office, and are not eligible for certain federal government benefits (though state/territorial governments often treat them the same as other Kiravians). Kiravian Nationals (Overseas) do not have automatic right of abode in the Kiravian Federacy, but they are allowed to freely enter it and remain for up to 60 days. They do, by local legislation, have right of abode in the Kiravian dependencies of St. Kennera and Pribraltar They also have "right of refuge", meaning that they can take shelter in the Federacy or anyplace subject to its jurisdiction for an indefinite period if they are in danger in the country where they normally reside, provided they notify the Overseas Kiravians Bureau or a local court clerk or postal captain. KN(O)s carry different passports than other Kiravians, and as such may have different visa requirements in foreign countries.

Metics (vôvodinya) enjoy all the same rights as full Kiravian citizens in terms of public benefits, consular services, etc., but cannot vote or stand for federal public office. Many individual states allow metics to vote in state and local elections and hold state and local offices. Metics are also referred to as "partial citizens" (ārvidesinya) or "citizen-candidates" (desinō-ivaburya) The majority of metics are immigrants who have earned Kiravian nationality and are in the process of becoming full citizens, but the metic population also includes a wide variety of people who became metics through a number of different circumstances, including:

‣ Descendants of people who were metics ab initio: For much of Kiravian history, including during the largest waves of Coscivian immigration to Kiravia, Coscivian persons admitted to the Federacy to settle were automatically accorded the status of metic, with the expectation that they would apply for full citizenship after living in Kiravia for the required five years. However, a significant minority of these people never did so for whatever reason, and because metics can go about everyday life with the same rights as citizens, some families have lived in Kiravia for multiple generations and have passed on their status to their children without bothering to upgrade.

‣ Descendants of people (whether immigrants or natives) who obtained or were born with Kiravian nationality and began the process of applying for full citizenship but either never completed it or were ruled ineligible.

‣ Descendants of people who were born out-of-wedlock to Kiravian citizens back when laws limited birthright citizenship to the legitimate children of citizen fathers. Also, people born to foreign fathers and Kiravian mothers during this time. Like the above two categories, people in this situation are free to apply for full citizenship, but not all have done so.

‣ Members of certain Aboriginal Kiravite tribes. After Kiravia gained control of the entire island-continent of Great Kirav in the Continental War, members of Aboriginal Kiravite tribes who had already been living under Kiravian rule before the war or who joined forces with Kiravia during the war were granted Kiravian citizenship. Members of tribes who had been neutral or completely uninvolved (mostly tribes in the Western Highlands) were granted meticship. Members of tribes who had fought against Kiravia were initially treated as a stateless subject people, but were gradually granted meticship on a tribe-by-tribe basis. All are now eligible to apply for full citizenship, but not all have done so.

Citizens (desinya) are Kiravian nationals with full political rights, who can stand for any public offices for which they are otherwise eligible and vote in any elections.

This graduated hierarchy of legal statuses is neither particularly controversial nor completely uncontested. Most Kiravians support or accept the current system, but there have been various movements for reform. The two largest political caucuses in the federal legislature, the Shaftonist-Republican Alliance and Caritist Social Union, have both declared their support for elevating non-immigrant, non-transitional metics to full citizenship, but have yet to introduce legislation to this effect.

Most historians believe that these different degrees of citizenship were inspired by the social and political class hierarchy in the nation of Heku, with which Kiravia has longstanding economic ties.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

All Kawaiians are equal under the law, from the most revered Patriarch to the lowliest Child of the Cute One.

[UniversalCommons]

No.

[Gandoor]

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? 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

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? Pointless, all citizens should have full and equal rights within their nation.

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

[Auzkhia]

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, we had lower class subjects in our history, but that is long gone. Feudal Auzkhia had serfs, but after that, voting rights only applied to landed gentry, then all men could vote, but not women until 1918. 1918 was when universal suffrage was guaranteed, this due to the war and women had to take industrial jobs because of conscription.

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?

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? There used to be those who were only imperial subjects, not full citizens, which applied to those who lived in the colonies, but that was abolished in 1949.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? Used to be, but everyone in the realm has full 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? 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 think it's very unequal and unfair.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? The Socialist Government moved to make all subjects full citizens to ensure everyone had full say in governance.

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

[Andower]

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 racial caste system, with whites at the top having the most rights (and most responsibilities) and blacks at the bottom having the least. Historically the men in each caste had more rights than the women in their caste, but this is no longer the case

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? Yes, socialists and some of the more radical civil rights groups are known to support so called "universal citizenship" but the vast majority are strongly against the idea

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? Most of the nations in our world which have "universal citizenship" tend to have very racially homogeneous societies, precluding the need for graduated citizenship altogether

If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? It was first adopted by the early colonial authorities as a way of maintaining the position of the (generally wealthy) early white settlers over the descendants of slaves and indentured labourers that were imported into Andower

[Ashturkstan]

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, explained below

• In medieval times, Ashturk society was under a caste system
• In modern times; prisoners, ex-convicts, and immigrant citizens are not afforded full rights as natural born citizens

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? Yes; prisoners, ex-convicts, and immigrant citizens are not afforded full rights as natural born citizens

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, in ancient and medieval times

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

[1]Non-convicted Natural Born citizens Can vote in all elections and hold a position in the national government
[2]Convicted Natural Born citizens can vote using provisional ballots and hold a position in the national government
[3]Non-convicted immigrant citizens can vote using provisional ballots that do not have all measures and offices on them, nor can they hold any higher office than local government
[4]Convicted Immigrant Citizens cannot vote but can run for local office
[5]All imprisoned persons cannot vote or hold any office while their status is incarcerated

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? There are no nationwide movements to remove 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? The nation doesn't judge other nations for not having a similar 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? See above

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

[Russo-Austria]

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? Since the de Medici dynasty was formed

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?
From bottom to top tier:
Illigle slave
Ligle slave
Serf
Indentured servant
Free peasant
Lower Bugoisie (worth at least 250,000 gold sovreignsa a year)
The Church
Honourary Titled
Lower Aristocracy
Upper Bugoisie (worth at least 1.5 million gold sovriegns a year)
Middle Aristocracy
Elected Officials
Upper Aristocracy
Royalty

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? Yes. For the wealthy to gain less influence - and to end slavery, serfdom, etc.

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 hatred or love

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? Approval

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?

[Great Nortend]

Does your nation operate on the idea of such a thing as a citizen? Yes, Great Nortend has the aequivalent concept of subjectship.
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 two major 'ranks' as it were, are full subjectship and petit subjectship. A full subject of the Crown is the highest degree of national of Great Nortend. The lesser grade is petit subjectship. Full subjectship grants suffrage to those people who are enfranchised, and is a requirement of holding public office, entering university and of receipt of general alms. Furthermore, full subjects may not be deported and possess right of entry and right of abode in Great Nortend. On the other hand, petit subjects may be deported if they hold a dual citizenship, and only hold indefinite leave to enter and indefinite leave to remain. There are also distinctions made in treason law where treason committed by a full subject is high treason whereas treason committed by a petit subject is only grand petty treason, a distinction that results in a slightly lesser punishment. Furthermore, only full subjects are permitted to hold commissions and warrants, and are described as 'trusty and beloved' in Royal letters patent, declarations, proclamations &c. whereas petit subjects are merely described as 'good and trusty'. All hereditary peers are automatically made full subjects even if they hold dual nationality.

Full subjectship requires the swearing of a full and absolute oath of allegiance to the King, as well as the swearing of a number of other oaths, which is traditionally a part of the confirmation ceremony. No full subject may hold a dual nationality or be a subject of any other country, princely state, nation or foreign power. All children born in His Majesty's Dominion to Nortan fathers are considered full subjects usque, or [by the right of blood/soil] until [the age of majority], unless they hold another nationality. If by the age of majority, a full subject usque refuses or otherwise fails to swear the required oaths, he loses his full subjectship automatically and becomes a petit subject, of the grade in totali if he holds no other nationality, or cum altero if he does. Full subjectship generally cannot be held with another nationality, except by special petition to the Privy Council or in the aforementioned cases regarding peers. Upon the conferral of a foreign nationality, a person's full subjectship is automatically revoked.

Petit subjectship of Great Nortend is the first step for those wishing to become full subjects of Great Nortend. Petit subjects are still required to bear allegiance towards His Majesty however are permitted to hold dual nationality with favourable states. Petit subjectship is separated into two sub-classes. Petit subjectship cum altero, or with another [nationality], is the Nortan equivalent of a permanent resident. Petit subjectship in totali, or in full, is the form held by erstwhile full subjects usque who fail to swear the required oaths by the age of majority, and have not acquired any other nationality. There is little difference in the two grades, except that those cum altero may be deported and are considered nationals of the other country, whilst those in totali are considered to be nationals of Great Nortend. A person who is a petit subject in totali may become a full subject by taking the required oaths at any time in front of a competent authority. A petit subject cum altero can become a full subject by satisfying the full citizenship criteria. Becoming a petit subject cum altero requires the taking of the Subjectship Examination, and satisfaction of the petit subject criteria.
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? There is little public consideration of it, as the form in Great Nortend is mostly a slightly different version of permanent residency.
If this practice was not in place before, but is now, when and why was it adopted? The system arose out of the common law, in the 19th and 20th centuries as notions of nationality settled.

[New Hayesalia]

To the requester, 14th of July, 2018 Dear Requestor, The New Hayesalian Government is constitutionally empowered to establish laws regarding New Hayesalian citizenship and nationality affairs. New Hayesalia's founding is attributable to open borders and migration across the world, with our modern nation welcoming millions of new citizens and permanent residents each year. New Hayesalia is a multicultural state sharing the core values of Compassion, Freedom, and Determination. Citizenship in New Hayesalia is traced back to 1895, when the concept of Hayesalian Union citizenship was introduced. It was not originally viewed as a single citizenship, but rather acted as a form of further supranational identity building and allowed for freedom of movement across the Hayesalian Union. It was later considered that unification of the Hayesalian Union citizenships to a central process would allow for easier administration and enhanced supranational unity, and Hayesalian Union citizenship was formally established and internationally recognised in 1949. In that sense, citizenship was divided until 1949 along provincial border lines. Upon amalgamation, all citizens of the Hayesalian Union became citizens of New Hayesalia. The same applied for citizens of Montmaray upon that nation's Amalgamation a year later. It is expected that the last remaining Hayesalian Union passports will expire in July of 2019, and the same for Montmaray the following year. As a democratic nation, all citizens of New Hayesalia are considered equal and there are no levels of distinctions in citizenship. I trust this information to be of use to you. Please do not hesitate to contact the FOI Office for any future enquiries. Shannon Broad Response Officer, New Hayesalian Freedom of Information Office The Greater Island Kingdom of New Hayesalia Amalgamated July 21, 2009 This is an official message of the New Hayesalian Government. This message may be disseminated in accordance with the security classification noted above.

[Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic]

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, Alinghi until the last half of XVII ceuntry whan an unhabitated land, the first colonist are who escaped from persecutions for religious motive (because are accued to be "heretics") from France, UK, German States, and Italian States. Due the lack of population where arent born things as nobility, or things that determined a persoan have a higer rank whan other.In 1754 the Kingdom of Alinghi is born, in the 1790 the illuminist first king Ferdinand I fascinated by the Declaration of Universal Declaration of Human Rights in France duing the French Revolution, with his volounty seeing the event of French Revolution he limits his powers conceding a constitutrion. Making a de Facto situation also the de jure situation of equalitity among all citizen

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? No

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

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? Alinghi oppose storngly to this ideal, all citizen among thier differencies have the right to be have the same rights and opportunities

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?

[Ko-oren]

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? N/A

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? It was on a geographical basis; people had different rights based on the province they were in and the province they are from, all while the entire nation presented itself as one single nation. Currently, it is on a basis of who is, is in the process of, or claims to want to become a Ko-orenite citizen. All three are allowed to study under cheaper rates, the former two may vote, and only the first may carry a Ko-orenite passport.

Is there any popular call to either remove graduated citizenship, or implement it, depending on the current situation of your nation? There was a call for removal, which was granted several centuries ago.

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? That is fair enough.

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? N/A

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

[Crylante]

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? There was feudalism largely up to the late 17th century, and traces remained until 1900.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? No; a founding principle of Crylante is a rejection of this.

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? tir Lhaeraidd and the United Kingdom of Lhedwin, two states which Crylante has been a vassal of/part of, had noble titles, but Lhaeraidh rule was responsible for the abolition of serfdom in Crylante.

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? The people generally strongly look down on them.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? Lhaeraidh rule abolished serfdom in an attempt to win popular support with the Crylantian populace, and the results of the Great War/Crylantian Revolution led to the abolition of all hereditary titles and tiers of citizenship.

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

[Vsyerossiya]

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, but the current practice is not directly connected to the past, graduated system.

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? Current system: Working Class (third class), Intelligentsia (intellectual middle class), Party (first class), and Autocrat (leader).

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

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? They are disorganized, chaotic, and inefficient.

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? To increase efficiency and national unity based on hierarchical collectivist principles.

[Vlasdol]

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?
Government official
Knight/Paladin
Armed forces
Civilians
Traitors

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? Looking down, structure is very important in Vlasdol

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? It was always in place

[Diarcesia]

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? 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?

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

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? Negatively

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?

[New Melvonia]

The Melvonian Foreign Ministry thinks this is a Very Interesting Thread, and thanks the Original Poster.
Citizenship in the Serene Republic has a characteristic which is, as far as we know, unique (we would love to hear about any others) and founded on our history as a Medieval independent city-state.
Our citizenship is, in a word, voluntary.
Anyone who was born and/or lives here can choose to take up citizenship at or after the age of 21, or earlier upon production of a Certificate of Non-Assery endorsed by an appropriate official. This entitles them to own property, hold office, vote in any elections we actually get around to having, sue or be sued in a court of law, serve in the military or the professions, pay taxes and turn up at the Doge's office shouting about issues (funny costume optional).
Because citizenship is voluntary it can also be voluntarily renounced. This is common as a form of protest against government policy, effectively resigning as a member of the public. Many Melvonians self-define politically as Anarcho-Apathists, and the most hardcore often take this step as an expression of how passionately they don't care. Once renounced, citizenship can of course be re-applied at will.
Historians have demonstated that in the Middle Ages the Republic did indeed keep records of who was and was not eligible for citizenship based on a fiendishly complex set of regulations, formulae, case rules and jurisdictions. In the early Renaissance, however, a decree of Florivorus VII declared this "too much faff", and the current system had been in place ever since.

Edit, to answer the rest of the question: Melvonians tend to view automatic citizenship as rather a harsh system, burdening people with civic obligations they may not want and have never asked for. The idea of removing or denying citizenship for any reason they view with pale-lipped horror and also consider highly illogical (since if you're not a citizen of a nation, it has no business punishing you for not following its laws). Since ethno-nationalism isn't a thing here, they're also baffled by the economic self-pwnage involved in restricting immigrant citizenship.

[Donnegall]

No, citizenship is citizenship. Until an immigrant becomes citizen he is a permament resident of Donnegall.

[Liberimery]

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

A Citizen is distinguished by having the right to vote and stand for elections in all levels of government.

Duel Citizenship is a Citizen who has Citizenship with two nations. Liberimery does require that the President General renounce alliegence to all foreign powers, authorities, laws, and obligations. All Federal Offices may not participate in foreign government affairs while in office but may retain Duel Citizenship. Anyone in the line of succession may not assume presidential office if they retain Citizenship upon entry into office.

Residents are not allowed to vote in Liberimery but are afforded all other rights. Residents are foreign nationals that live and/or work in Liberimery for long periods of time. Residents are not required to become citizens though many are immigrants seeking full citizenship. Residents may be allowed to vote in local or state elections in accordance with their laws but may not vote for Federal offices. They are not allowed to stand for office or

A Liberimerian person is considered to be any citizen, resident, or other person who has legally entered a territory possession, Liberimery flagged vessel, or any assembly that contains 51% or more of Liberimerian citizens or residents by number. They retain all due processes of law protections afforded by the Constitution.

A Citizen Warrier is a program that allows foreigners to obtain citizenship by serving in the Liberimery Armed Services for two active tours of duty. Upon honorable discharge, they automatically become 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. Men were typically not allowed to serve in the Lower House or Judiciary. Women were not allowed to sever in the Upper House or the executive elected offices.

Does your nation operate on such a practice today? Sufferage has allowed citizens of either gender to stand for any elected office. However, the gendered structure of government is a de facto practice that still occurs today.

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.

If so at any point in history, along which lines was citizenship divided? What are their tiers / ranks? Under 18th century when the islands were unrepresented colonial possessions. Natives were not citizens.

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

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? Official Government Policy to all nations is political Nuetrality, thus government officials do not comment about the policies of other nations. The man on the street opinion varies based on policies.

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? See above answer.

If this practice was ever in place, but isn't anymore, when and why was it abandoned? Sufferage was enacted after combining a male and reactionary female sufferage petition to open up blocked government branches were combined and successfully passed. This occurred at the beginning of the 20th century.

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

[Gig em Aggies]

citizenship is an honor you are not born a citizen you must earn it mothers get it by giving birth fathers give it by devoting their time to either the state through various methods, children get it by reward for doing good in school. people of conquered worlds are classified as pseudo-citizen until they give their time in the service of the Council of Judges either as a soldier in the Galactic army or by joining a colonial planetary police force to help keep people of various worlds under control.