[JeffRosenberg]

I agree with all the comments here that this seems pretty sketchy, and that "de facto" acceptance seems more like "accidental" acceptance. But I've been interested in the idea of "global citizenship" for a while... Are there any less sketchy organizations working towards a similar end?

[rwmj]

The EU's Freedom of Movement is a remarkable achievement. It's far from world wide and doesn't even aim for that, but it does allow you to move freely in ~30 sovereign countries. (Shame some 70 million of us just lost it)

[vidarh]

In a similar vein, African Union covers 55 countries and is working towards the same thing (though long off getting there).

[JeffRosenberg]

Agreed, although that doesn't help me as a US citizen :-)

[PaywallBuster]

Why not? Once your visa is approved (or you have visa on arrival) you can travel to any of the countries within the union without redoing your visa

[__s]

Even for you it means that if you get a Schengen visa (ie a visa for a country in the Schengen zone) that you may travel freely around the Schengen zone with that visa for 90 days

[bobthechef]

What is "global citizenship"?

Citizenship confers legal rights/privileges but also duties.

The notion of "global" citizenship sounds more like globalist hyperindividualism and something that opens the door to mass migration. If so, it disregards the concept of ethnic and cultural group and the effects of unrestricted migration on the host country. (Actually, mass migration is a social engineering tactic that's been used in the past for the purposes of ethnic cleansing. Once you get enough people in the door from an alien culture, this causes fragmentation and destabilization and possibly the emigration if not destruction of the host populace. Whether that is the intention or not is irrelevant because that is the effect.)

[amanaplanacanal]

Isn’t pretty much everybody where they are today because of mass migration of their ancestors?

My government doesn’t tell me where I can travel. I think the world would be a better place if all governments worked like this.

[bobthechef]

> Isn’t pretty much everybody where they are today because of mass migration of their ancestors?

That's a preposterous argument. You're basically saying it's okay for host countries and culture to be wiped off the face of the planet for the sake of unrestricted migration. Why on earth would anyone want that to that happen to their country?

It's one thing to migrate en masse into unoccupied land. It is a different matter to migrate en masse into an existing society. Whenever the latter has happened, it has led to the destruction of the host society.

> My government doesn’t tell me where I can travel.

This has nothing to do with travel. Citizenship isn't the privilege of traveling. It is a legally enshrined commitment made to some society. The idea of global citizenship is simply vacuous. Hence my question above. it's it's about being able to flit about the world as your please, then it's an abuse of the term because that's not citizenship.

[rwmj]

Scotland has been in a Union with England for 300 years, with a great deal of migration and no barriers between the nations. Has Scottish culture been "wiped off the face of the planet" in that time? No.

[thefounder]

You can't have "global citizenship" without a "global social welfare system".

[Arubis]

I agree with my sibling commentator that Of Course You Could, but having a framework to end world hunger and homelessness sounds...nice?

[rwmj]

Of course you could. You'd have to make welfare be based on an insurance-type scheme as is used in Germany.