On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Doug Henwood wrote:
> But social democracy and/or democratic socialism offer(s) a different
> economic deal from liberal regimes like the US..<snip>.. it's not only a
> matter of voting or running for office, it also entitles one to a rich set
> of material benefits. I don't see how they can avoid making a bigger deal
> out of citizenship than more laissez-faire democracies.
I'm having a hard time seeing anything in empirical reality that corresponds to this idea. Citizenship laws are defined on such different axes than economies that I'm having a hard time coming up with comparable pairs. But Canada and America are fairly close to comparable on citizenship laws -- they are both far outliers in that they are both very close to pure ius solus (the principle whereby you get citizenship for where you are born). I think we'd all agree that Canada is more of a social democracy. Do you think it has visibly tougher borders than the US? I don't see it.
If you go to the other extreme, citizenship laws that are close to the pole of being defined by pure ius sanguinis (the principle whereby people get citizenship based on lineage), it's hard to find a great example of free-wheeling capitalism. But I think it would fair to say that Japan has a less developed welfare state than Sweden. Are its borders softer? Again, I don't see it.
Most countries -- all countries, really -- are a mix of the two principles, and most of them are so mixed up and particular that I'd have a hard time comparing "toughness" at all -- the criteria for citzenship under the two principles are just so different.
Michael