Citizenship Kritik

Thesis
The modern notion of citizenship promotes a nationalistic model of government
that commits crimes against humanity in the name of sovereignty

Link
The affirmative ascribes to an age old vision of politics based on around the
notion of citizenship; this is the case as civil rights do not equal human rights.
(Jennifer McErlean. Professor of Philosophy at Siena College. 2005. Civil rights and the abortion debate. Think,
3(09), 27-32. doi:10.1017/S1477175600002025)

Nevertheless, to simply give up on rights talk is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Human rights, civil rights, and associated
language including privacy, autonomy, and choice, are fundamental to moral understanding. Human rights, as described in the
United Nations Universal Declaration, encompass the rights of all in the human family to freedom and dignity, including rights to the
opportunity to achieve ones full potential, to personal integrity and privacy, to a cultural identity, to equal pay and treatment before

Civil Rights, which should and do include women, people of color, gay
and lesbian individuals, are more specific and relate to equal participation in
society as described in our Fourteenth Amendment: [e.g.] rights to vote,
franchise, education, access to housing, rights to
travel and use public facilities. For Kant, these rights are
grounded in our ability to engage in free and
thoughtful societal participation. Such rights would not extend to animals or
the law, to be free from torture and slavery.

fetuses. What it would be inconsistent to maintain that animals and nature should have rights while fetuses do not, it is not
inconsistent to deny rights to all groups outside of rational and political agents.

Thus, civil rights are created in order to encourage citizens participation in their
respective society. This links to the K because the Aff categorizes citizens based
only in respect to their country or society.

Impacts
This model of citizenship is a reassertion of national sovereignty that is bound to
fail in an age of globalization.
(Benhabib, Yale, Twilight of Sovereignty or the Emergence of Cosmopolitan Norms: Rethinking Citizenship in Volatile
Terms, 2007)
Twilight of Sovereignty and Global Civil Society
Just as the capacity of nation-states to exercise their stateness varies considerably, so do their reactions to the shrinking
sphere of state autonomy and activity. Vis-a`-vis the economic, ecological, legal challenges and

the growing uidity of world-wide migrations,

the

states

of Europe

have chosen

cooperative restructuring of sovereignty. To be juxtaposed to this cooperative restructuring of sovereignty is

unilateral reassertion of sovereignty. At

the

the

the present time not only the United States, but China, Iran and

The strategy here is to

strengthen the state via attempts to gather all the markers of sovereignty in the public
authority with the consequence of increased militarization , disregard for international law and
human rights, regressive and hostile relations with neighbors, and criminalization of migration. The
India are going down this route, not to mention Russia, North Korea and Israel.

third alternative is the weakening of the already fragile institutions of state sovereignty in vast regions of Africa, Central and
Latin America, and South Asia. In these cases global market forces further destabilize fragile economies; they break up the
bonds between the vast army of the poor and the downtrodden and their local elites, who now network with their global
counterparts, thus leaving the masses to the mercy of maquilladoras, paramilitaries, drug lords and criminal gangs. The

state withdraws into a shell, as has happened in the Ivory Coast, in the Congo, in the
Sudan, in El Salvador, in some parts of Brazil, in Burma, etcetera. Under such conditions popular
sovereignty takes the form, at best, of guerilla warfare and, at worst, of equally criminal groups
ghting to gain a piece of the pie. Neither the contraction of stateness nor its
militarized reassertion enhance popular sovereignty.
The volatile and often ambivalent congurations of institutions such as citizenship and
sovereignty which have dened our understanding of modern politics for nearly the
last 350 years since the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) have understandably given rise to conicting
commentaries and interpretations in contemporary political thought . These can be
characterized as: theories of empire, theories of transnational governance, and theories of post-national citizenship.

Extension: Extend my Benhabib card, as it links the affirmative advocacy to my kritik. The
modern model of states are the same as the ones 350 years ago where citizens used to affiliate
with their state as their representative. However, given the current age of globalization, the
current notions of citizenship is being challenged by international awareness, which forces
states to consolidate their power and retract into a shell of nationalism. Thus, by affirming that
just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens, the rhetoric of the resolution
links into the kritik

This nationalistic mentality makes the foreigner a threat to the citizen, making
war inevitable.
(Graylin, British Philosopher, The Last Word on Nationalism, 2000)
Nationalists take certain unexceptionable desires and muddle them with
unacceptable ones. We individually wish to run our own affairs; that is
unexceptionable. Most of us value the culture which shaped our development and gave us
our sense of personal and group identity; that too is unexceptionable. But the
nationalist persuades us that the existence of other groups and cultures somehow puts
these things at risk, and that the only way to protect them is to see ourselves as
members of a distinct collective , defined by ethnicity, geography, or sameness of language or religion,
and to build a wall around ourselves to keep out "foreigners". It is not enough that the others are
other; we have to see them as a threat at very least to "our way of life", perhaps to our jobs, even to our daughters.
When Europe's overseas colonies sought independence, the only rhetoric to hand was that of nationalism. It had well
served the unifiers of Italy and Germany in the nineteenth century (which in turn prepared the way for some of their
activities in the twentieth century), and we see a number of the ex-colonial nations going the same way today.
[The idea of nationalism turns on that of a "nation". The word is a joke: we British are one of the most mongrel of
"nations", a mixture of so many immigrations in the last two millenia that the idea of a British ethnicity is comical,
except for the Celtic fringes, whose boast has to be either that they remained so remote and disengaged, or so
conquered, for the greater part of history, that they succeeded in keeping their gene pool "pure" (a cynic might
unkindly say "inbred").] Much nonsense is talked about nations as entities: Emerson spoke of the "genius" of a nation
as something separate from its numerical citizens; Giradoux described the "spirit of a nation" as "the look in its eyes";
other such meaningless assertions abound. Nations are artificial constructs, their boundaries

drawn in the blood of past wars. And one should not confuse culure and nationality: there is no country
on earth which is not home to more than one different but usually coexisting culture. Cultural heritage is not the same
thing as national identity.

Extension: Extend my Graylin card as it impacts nationalism with war. Because nationalism
convinces us that our needs are threatened by the Other, we build walls and attack those who
come close to us, marking our borders with their blood. Thus, affirmation means that you accept
the premise that different means bad.
The past century has been one defined by the mentality of the affirmative, one
which is defined by genocidal violence.
(Conversi, Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing, and Nationalism, 2006)
The twentieth century has been widely recognized as the century of nationalism
and genocide. Most historians and social scientists are in concordance on this grim assessment of the past
century (see Carmichael 2005; Hobsbawm 1995; Kuper 1981; Levene 2000, 2005b; Melson 1996; Shaw 2003):
Never before has mass killing been carried out on such a vast scale and in such a short span of time.

Nationalism has become a truly global political movement and the dominant
ideology of modernity. From its European core, it has slowly shifted and mutated, adapting its chameleonic
shape according to geography and history. Thus, the modern itinerary of genocide follows the
trail of nationalism and Westernizing modernity.
The connection between Westernization, modernity, war and genocide has become
relatively established in academia. These historical developments are strictly related to state formation

many Holocaust scholars describe genocide as an

entirely modern and Western event with its unprecedented systematicity and techno-bureaucratic dimension
in an age of militarized nationalism. Thus,

(Bauman 1989). The French historian Lon Poliakov (1974) argued that the Holocaust was legitimized as a triumph
of Western civilization, the latter being conceived in terms of racial superiority against spurious Oriental, non-Western
influences which could imperil civilization from within and lead to its fatal decadence. Genocide is therefore

intensively related to European inter-state rivalry, government expansion,

imperialism and the states intrusion into the private realm via the consolidation
of central power. Patriotism and nationalism provided its ideological glue and
emotional underpinning.

Extension: Extend my Conversi Card as it impacts nationalism to genocide. Stemming from

Western thought, nationalism emerged as a global concept, providing the ideological glue for
many nations to commit terrible acts of genocide, such as the Holocaust or the Rwandan
Genocide. Thus, the two main impacts of the kritik are war and genocide

Alternative
The alternative is a global model of citizenship which recognizes both the
benefits and limitations of the nation-state.
(Bradshaw, Brock University, Cosmopolitanism and Citizenship, 2011)
Because for Kant, it is not our intention to teach virtue, but only to state what is right (Met. 134), the emphasis is
upon the political institutions that will guard external actions. There is no right without a state to
guarantee it. The natural condition, Kant affirms, is a condition devoid of justice,
because if there is a dispute over right, there is no competent judge to resolve
the argument. Any contract between individuals is provisional until it has been sanctioned by a public law.
(Met., 138-139) The only legitimate form of state, for Kant, is the republican model in which there is a division of
powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches. The people who unite together in a

state are citizens, and the three rightful attributes which are inseparable from the nature of a
citizen as such are: 1) the lawful freedom to obey only those laws to which one has
given consent; 2) the recognition of civil equality among all citizens; 3)
independence of will that accords with ones rights and powers as a member of
the commonwealth. (Met. 139) These provisos from Kant are important to note, because
they tie the protection of right irrevocably to the political institutions of the state. No state, no right.
Kant is not a natural rights theorist, like John Locke, and right for Kant is the willed and institutionalized framework of
citizenship. In citizenship, Kant remarks, people have not sacrificed a part of their inborn external freedom for a
specific purpose; rather, they have completely abandoned their wild and lawless freedom, in order to find their entire
and undiminished freedom in a state of lawful dependence (i.e. in a state of right), for this dependence is created by
their own legislative will. (Met. 140)
Where does cosmopolitanism fit in here? Kants views on right set up something of a conundrum, because while he
holds that rights are universal, and can be embraced by reason, they can be upheld only within the containment of
state sovereign political institutions. The idea of right is universal, but the practical

enforcement of right requires separate republican states regulated by law and backed up by
force. We need particular states to enforce universal laws. Kant tells us that all the nations of the world may
unite for the purpose of creating universal laws to regulate the intercourse they have
with one another, and this he terms cosmopolitanism. (Met.172) Kant anticipates that, despite the
great oceans that divide peoples, the world will open up to increased trade and mobility, and
he declares that cosmopolitanism demands an attitude of hospitality, wherein the citizens of the world have rights to
enter the communities of others, and to expect welcome from them. Cosmopolitanism does not extend to a right to
settle on foreign land, Kant says, and the universal laws that he attaches to cosmopolitanism would seem to be
limited to those governing hospitality.

Extension: Extend my Bradshaw Card as it justifies why the alternative is preferable. If we

recognize people as global citizens, we would be less likely to violate rights as then wed be
recognizing rights as universal. The affirmative is prescribing basic human rights on

the basis of citizenship bound to national borders, not based upon the
universality of the human condition (good for CX).
-

CX Lines of Questioning
Goal 1: To get affirmative to admit that a just government upholds the rights of its
citizens
Question(s)/Response(s):
Neg: Does a just government have obligations to its people?
Aff 1: Yes
Neg 1: What are those obligations?
Aff 1: [Some crap but will inevitably talk about rights]
Aff 2: Not necessarily, due to [crap]
Neg 2: So a just government doesnt have to fulfill its obligations to
its people?
Aff 2: No, but what Im saying isNeg 2: So whats the purpose of a government, then?
- Bad End Neg: So a just government protects the rights of its people?
Aff: Yes
(Slip in question, So the government provides these rights for them?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Goal 2: To get affirmative to admit that there is a dichotomy between citizens and
non-citizens (continued from Goal 1)
Question(s)/Response(s):
Neg: Why?
Aff: [some crap but will eventually talk about SCT]
Neg: So because the government was founded by the people?
Aff: Yes
Neg: However, does a government really derive its justice from the people?
Aff 1: Yes

Aff 2: Not necessarily, as [some crap about democracy not only just
government]
Neg 2: Did I ever say democracy?
Aff 2: No, butNeg 2: I said derive its justice from the people, correct?
Aff 2: Yes, butNeg 2: So then how can a government that was founded by its
people with obligations for their people not derive its justice from the
people?
- Bad End --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Goal 3: Get affirmative to admit government owes rights to citizens (from Goal 1)
Neg: Do people really have rights?
Aff: Yes (or get f*cked)
Neg: What political institution protects those rights?
(You gotta be kinda sneaky about this one)

Blocks
A/T International Rights make alternative non-unique
(Bradshaw, Brock University, Cosmopolitanism and Citizenship, 2011)
cosmopolitan right as something [is] entirely separate from international right.
International right consists in the legally binding treaties among sovereign states, principally for
regulating, and Kant hopes, eventually eliminating, war. The idea of a world republic cannot be realized, Kant
wrote, both because independent states do not wish to forfeit their sovereignty , and because the
extension of territorial dominion over the whole world according to Kant, is a practical problem, [is] likely
to induce tyranny, not right. Kant comments that nature wisely separates the nations, by linguistic and cultural differences, differences
Kant identifies

that Kant appears not to regard as intrinsically worthy in comparison to his principles of right, but which he regards as useful in containing the state
within practically manageable borders. He hopes international agreements among states will generate a peace created and guaranteed by equilibrium
of forces and a most vigorous rivalry, a balance he regards as much preferable to a universal despotism which saps all mans energies and ends in
the graveyard of freedom.(Per.Peace. 114)

Interaction with AC MetaStandards

my off-case precludes the AC.
Genocide meets their metastandards due to
1.

a) Meta-Justice justice requires that we prevent senseless killing. If I kill

you with a reason, justice may be evident but contested. However, if I kill
you with no reason, there is no justice
b) Meta-Morality morality requires that we recognize the consequence of
policies and therefore, it would not be moral to be consistent with a moral
that justifies genocide and that moral is genocide
c) Meta-Governmental Legitimacy its generally an understood standard
of a governments legitimacy that it does not promote genocide. If any
government violates this meta-standard, it automatically becomes unjust.
Also, it cannot violate the right to life, yet genocide is all about violating life
d) Meta-Life Life can only be upheld if it is valued. Genocide prevents one
from valuing life as it justifies one ethnic race slaughtering another
ethnicity. That automatically destroys the value of life
e)

Interaction with AC - Outweigh

the impact of my kritik outweighing
his/her impacts
2.

a) Decreased Democracy democracy means nothing if that very

democracy is promoting genocide (magnitude); does democracy really
matter, since there are countries that arent democratic yet still can ensure
food security for its people (uniqueness); democracy can still be
maintained as it is gradual, whereas war is simply an instantaneous
moment where the brink is pushed (brink)
b) People Will Die people will die in the affirmative world as well due to
genocide (uniqueness); more people are affected by war and genocide due
to the collateral damage than from hunger (scope); hunger kills slowly
while bullets kill instantly (timeframe)
c) Hurts GDP/Economy my impact definitely affects more people (scope);
death of an entire ethnicity cannot be reversed (reversibility); the likelihood
of war or genocide happens far faster than the stagnation of GDP
(timeframe)
d) Stunted Generation there might not even be a next generation if war
breaks out and obliterates the previous generation (timeframe); the effects
of stunting could go away during late childhood and adolescence whereas
death is eternal (reversibility); while a generation of stunted children are
bad, my impact does not discriminate against its victims (scope)
e) Child Labor the amount and number of people affected by a genocide
will far outweigh child labor (scope); child labor is an issue that the
international community is working to combat, but its impossible to
combat death (reversibility); food security wont automatically solve for
child labor as there are other issues that cause it (uniqueness)
f)

Interaction with AC - Turns

4.

how my kritik turns the AC

a) Food Security TURN Food insecurity is caused by war and genocide

(0:30)
(Ellen Messer, Woodrow Wilson International Center of Scholars, Conflict as a Cause of Hunger) 1, writes
The most obvious way in which armed [First] conflict causes hunger is [through the] deliberate use of
food as a weapon. Adversaries starve opponents into submission by seizing or destroying
food stocks, livestock, or other assets in rural areas and by cutting off sources of food or livelihood, including destruction of markets
in urban and rural areas. Land and water resources are mined or contaminated, to force people to leave and to discourage their return.

[Second] it
is also evident where combatants commandeer and divert relief food from intended
beneficiaries and keep emergency rations from affected civilian and displaced populations.
Military interests appropriate both local and externally donated provisions for their own tactical advantage. A prolonged
case in point is the Sudan, where the government in 1990 had sold grain reserves to fuel
their military, but refused to declare a food emergency or allow relief into starving opposition
areas. Both government and opposition forces created famine as a tool to control
territories and populations, and restricted access to food aid (often by attacking relief convoys) as an instrument
The deliberate use of hunger as a weapon is most evident in siege warfare and "scorched earth" tactics, but

of ethnic and religious oppression (Keen 1994).

b) Disease TURN War and genocide increase the spread of disease

(0:30)
(Student Pugwash USA, Student Pugwash USA engages students to promote the socially responsible use of
science and technology in the 21st century. While run by a professional staff headquartered in Washington, D.C., the
organization uses a chapter-based model on U.S. college campuses. The student members discuss the ethical, social and
global implications of advances in these fields and explore the pursuit of socially responsible careers involving science and
technology, War and Disease, 1997)

Disease is an often unrecognized weapon of war. It silently claims lives throughout a conflict and long after a cease
fire has been signed. War and disease have accounted for millions of deaths globally. In fact, William Foege's study on arms
and public health claims that throughout history infectious diseases have killed more
soldiers than have weapons. While today's soldiers are less likely to die from war- related diseases, their effects on civilian
populations living in wartime remain a serious concern.

The socioeconomic and political disruption brought about by war often leads to extreme
poverty, displacement, unhygienic conditions, and health problems. The collapse of social systems
and the creation of refugee populations promote [promoting] an environment where disease can thrive. For
example, cases of malaria, cholera, typhoid fever, and polio tend to increase during civil strife.

The scarcity of food and medical supplies during war often reinforces and intensifies existing
conflicts. The demand for increasingly scant resources breaks down the national
infrastructures required for health and well being. In addition, this lack of basic necessities sometimes fuels
conflict. International humanitarian efforts to intervene by delivering relief supplies or other aid may help defuse growing tensions, but such attempts
are often insufficient or ineffective.

c) Increase Poverty TURN War and genocide increase poverty (0:15)

(Ellen Messer, Woodrow Wilson International Center of Scholars, Conflict as a Cause of Hunger) 2, writes
Food shortage ripples into the larger economy and extends over multiple years when
farmers, herders, and others flee attacks, terror, and destruction or suffer reductions in their capacities to
produce food because of forced labour recruitment (including conscription) and war-related

depletion of assets. Ancillary attacks of disease, linked to destruction of health facilities, and hardship and hunger also reduce the
human capacity for food production.

These factors set the stage for multiple years of food shortage , especially where conflicts interact with
natural disasters such as multi-year droughts. Combined political-environmental disasters over several years produce the "complex emergencies" that
now confront the international relief community. The World Food Programme, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies, other bilateral and multilateral relief agencies, and NGOs increasingly are called to respond to these emergency relief situations at the
expense of peaceful development assistance aimed at increasing food production and livelihood in these same or other war zones (Maxwell and
Buchanan Smith 1994).

d) Climate Change TURN War and genocide further environmental

damage (1:00)
(Brian Palmer, Chief Explainer of Slate.com, War on the World: How does warfare affect the environment?, 2012)
The real risk that conventional weapons pose to the environment is through indirect
effects. In May 1943, for example, Royal Air Force pilots blew up a pair of German dams. The
resulting flood destroyed more than 7,000 acres of farmland, inundated 125 factories, and sent water
rushing through several coal mines. U.S. forces used a similar tactic in the Korean War. In 1977, the Geneva Conventions were amended to ban the
intentional breaching of dams in wartime, but only if the attack would cause severe losses among the civilian population. Environmental impacts are
not mentioned.

Another major concern is the potential destruction of chemical facilities. Chemical plants today hold far
larger volumes of dangerous substances than they used to. According to Czech toxicologist Jiri Matousek , the
average sulfuric acid production plant in the 1950s generated around 10 tons of the
chemical per day. By 1990, the average production had increased 200-fold , to 2,000 tons daily.
The trains, trucks, and pipelines that carry our dangerous chemicals have also increased their capacities.

One need only observe peacetime accidents to see what terror a bomb could unleash if dropped on a modern chemical
factory. At the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, in 1984, water infiltrated into a tank holding methyl isocyanate. The
mixture caused an explosion that contaminated the surrounding area, killing thousands. Attacks on chemical plants are
entirely possible. President Clinton ordered the bombing of a Sudanese factory in 1998 precisely because he thought it was
stocked with dangerous chemicals.

there are the truly unfortunate incidents in which a desperate leader uses
environmental terrorism as a military tactic. The most famous example is Saddam Hussein, who set
fire to hundreds of oil wells on his way out of Kuwait in the first Persian Gulf War. He
also dumped 11 million barrels of oil into the Gulf , the largest oil spill in history at the time. Oil lakes and thick
Then

deposits of tarcrete covered the area, and scientists found traces of oil in ants and sand lizards more than a decade later.

Warfare can have more subtle effects on the land than huge plumes of smoke. When Iraqi and
American forces took turns crossing Kuwait in the early 1990s, they upset the natural
gravel that holds the underlying soil in place. The result was accelerated wind
erosion, a tenfold increase in sand dune formation, and consequent loss of vegetation that sustained
the animals that occupied Kuwaits desert and semi-desert regions.
e) Increased Education TURN education promotes the ancient model of
citizenship (0:30)
(Diana Owen, Associate Professor of Political Science at Georgetown University, Citizenship Identity and Civic Education
in the United States, 2004)
education and political socialization scholarship have [has] left a legacy of stock citizenship
constructs. These include the citizen as loyal subject and patriot, the citizen as voter, and the
citizen as enlightened community participant. These constructs, while not mutually exclusive, prioritize
Civic

particular attributes that conform to specific notions of the good citizen.

The Citizen as Loyal Subject and Patriot

Early political socialization research objectives maintained the importance of
stable political regimes, and focused on formal processes of teaching and learning
designed to foster regime support. The concern with transmitting regime norms across generations [this] led to
an early emphasis on preadults as the primary targets of civic education. Training
focused on children learning the basic information, values, and beliefs about politics
that are necessary for their later role as adult citizens (e.g. Hess and Torney 1967; Niemi, et al.
1974).

CX Responses
Aff Question: Wont nations still exist under your alternative, making it nonunique?
Neg Response: Why should that matter? My case doesnt address that because
its non-essential to my kritik. I have already proven that the current model of
citizenship has caused all the harms and impacts listed above. Unless you can
prove that in my alternative, citizens dont exist, then I suppose you might win.

Aff Question: Should are we supposed to destroy national boundaries, then?

Aff Question: Implementation
K interacts with AC
1. formatting
2. do impx at end
TURN
K interacts with AC in ____ ways
1. K precludes AC, we need to stop genocide before anything else (metastandard)
2. K outweighs AC, genocide/war
3. K turns AC because war and genocide cause food insecurity becasue...
rizpop565@gmail.com