Citizenship is one of Western society’s most poorly conceived concepts. That’s by design. For this broad misconception is largely due to the concerted efforts of state, media, and big business actors, who all have interests in perpetuating it. Though for sake of clarity to an audience not in need of it: a nation-state is not a prerogative of The Immigrant People, a diversity metric, or a market segment. Citizenship is an ownership share in a country.
Citizenship holds value based on that country’s social amenities (e.g., safety, stability, efficiency, cleanliness, opportunities, and entertainment), as well as its solvency, continuity, and military capacity to thwart hostile intents. Citizenship is a unit of wealth that varies as much in value among countries as shares do among companies. One share of Berkshire Hathaway is worth far more than one share of Twitter in the same way and for much the same reasons as citizenship in America is worth more than citizenship in Honduras.
And though their companies offer widely varying share prices one thing you will notice in common between Warren Buffet and Jack Dorsey is that neither give away stock in their company to millions of itinerant mexicans and muslims. Do you know why that is so? Because they understand the value of their franchise–such as it is in Dorsey’s case–and are keen to keep it undiluted.
Buffet, Dorsey, and of course peers like Zuckerberg and Gates are not wealthy because their companies are successful, but because they own a large percentage of successful companies. That sound like semantics, but the distinction makes all the difference when you’re deciding between a fishing boat and a yacht. Though it’s also a distinction these men take pains to obscure when it applies to their less financially pharaohic countrymen.
Because citizenship is not just an interest in aircraft carriers and national parks. It’s also one voting share in the leadership and direction of your country. Handing these out to huge numbers of unlike people should be an endeavor undertaken judiciously. If Mark Zuckerberg granted 10,000 shares of Facebook to every foreign national just trying to make a better portfolio for themselves, then soon enough his ownership percentage would fall to the point where migrating shareholder factions would be able to remove him from the board, and ultimately take control of the company. And just like that, the man who founded the Winklevoss twins’ company would be evicted from it. Facebook may continue to be successful, but as a concern completely independent of Mark Zuckerberg. Would you believe me if I told you he understands this perfectly? And that he has no interest whatsoever in ceding control of his company, even if the financial press call him stock dilute-o-phobic?
That is why you will find Zuckerberg stridently parsimonious with Facebook stock. That he is contrastingly profligate with American citizenship tells you exactly where his loyalty, and fortunes, actually reside.
It’s long been trite to say a fool and his money are soon parted, and corporate CEOs are anything but fools. Unfortunately the pyramid of foolishness flares out broadly beneath them and, as a result, few people make a point of contrasting corporate open-borders advocacy with their closed-stock companies.
When businessmen do issue stock that diminishes their control, they do so in exchange for great sums of money. We simply hand our far more valuable countries away for free. Men who would never dream of relinquishing their children’s college fund or inheritance do exactly that by inviting in foreigners to split it with them.
This isn’t how the corporate world operates at all. Majority shareholders aren’t interested in “diversity.” They’re interested in remaining majority shareholders. That’s why they prefer to feel the pain of obliterated social capital, foreign colonies, migrant crime, and H1B’d jobs vicariously while on a private jet to Monaco.
It’s useful to understand this relative value perception to know why citizen shares in countries are so routinely discounted by the rich. For most people, their house represents a significant portion of their wealth. Thus granting equal shares of it to a dozen mestizo squatters would pose egregious loss. Yet for any of the men named herein, their residence represents an infinitesimal component of their wealth. Losing a house is nothing to losing a cocktail party invitation. They could give a house to Somalis for the charity glow alone, while suffering no more of a comparative loss than a penny out of your pocket. Their true castle is their fame, wealth, prestige, and brand. And these they are not at all willing to give to refugees. Your home, however, is quite another story.
For everyone not in possession of a vast fortified Hawaiian estate, Western citizenship is an item of substantial inherited value rather than an inconvenient barrier to the free movement of labor units. Thus it’s amazing how many people of modest means are so ignorantly cavalier in disposing of it. It seems more even than money, a fool and control of his country are soon parted.