What is the rationale behind citizenship in the first place?
It’s a rather new concept that has only been around for around 150 years. The system it (gradually) replaced was worse, but that doesn’t mean we should keep the concept of citizenship.
Yes, in Europe (other societies, such as Japan, often had very similar systems) it replaced the estate system. In medieval Europe, there were three castes (estates): the nobility, clergy and commoners (including slaves and serfs up to the bans of those practices). Social mobility between these castes was very limited, though going from nobility to clergy was somewhat common. By the end of the medieval period, a new caste emerged: the burghers (citizens - the word itself refers to a city), which consisted of part of the city-dwelling population with elevated status. Under influence of the liberal-nationalist movement of the 19th Century, eventually the burgher caste superseded all the other ones, which were abolished or remain only in ceremonial roles and now most countries have a two-caste system consisting of citizens and noncitizens (even in India this distinction is now more important than the traditional caste system, which still does have major influence in India).
The status of foreigners, which became the noncitizen caste, varied by time and place throughout history. Some societies (like Japan) entirely banned entry of foreigners, in others their status was equal to that of commoners (unless they were foreign nobles or clergy of course). Pogroms and discrimination were commonplace, though, either informally and driven by locals, or decreed by rulers such as during the ethnic cleansing campaigns of the Reconquista. Be that as it may, the religious refugees during the Reformation and Inquisition to places like the Low Countries and Great Britain never had to “apply for citizenship,” and in some sense the current situation has become worse than the status quo ante. The United Kingdom, for example, introduced its first immigration controls in the early 20th Century.
What is the rationale behind citizenship in the first place?
It’s a rather new concept that has only been around for around 150 years. The system it (gradually) replaced was worse, but that doesn’t mean we should keep the concept of citizenship.
I mean did citizenship even replace anything? AFAIK there wasn’t an analogous system before nation-states (and therefore modern citizenship).
Yes, in Europe (other societies, such as Japan, often had very similar systems) it replaced the estate system. In medieval Europe, there were three castes (estates): the nobility, clergy and commoners (including slaves and serfs up to the bans of those practices). Social mobility between these castes was very limited, though going from nobility to clergy was somewhat common. By the end of the medieval period, a new caste emerged: the burghers (citizens - the word itself refers to a city), which consisted of part of the city-dwelling population with elevated status. Under influence of the liberal-nationalist movement of the 19th Century, eventually the burgher caste superseded all the other ones, which were abolished or remain only in ceremonial roles and now most countries have a two-caste system consisting of citizens and noncitizens (even in India this distinction is now more important than the traditional caste system, which still does have major influence in India).
The status of foreigners, which became the noncitizen caste, varied by time and place throughout history. Some societies (like Japan) entirely banned entry of foreigners, in others their status was equal to that of commoners (unless they were foreign nobles or clergy of course). Pogroms and discrimination were commonplace, though, either informally and driven by locals, or decreed by rulers such as during the ethnic cleansing campaigns of the Reconquista. Be that as it may, the religious refugees during the Reformation and Inquisition to places like the Low Countries and Great Britain never had to “apply for citizenship,” and in some sense the current situation has become worse than the status quo ante. The United Kingdom, for example, introduced its first immigration controls in the early 20th Century.
Basically less bickering and fighting about who pays what tax.
In most jurisdictions, citizenship plays no role in taxation. The US is an outlier in this regard.
Taxation can be and is usually done solely on the basis of residency.
It’s been around much longer than 150 years. Rome and Greece both had detailed citizenship rules more than 2000 years ago.
Yes, but their concept of citizenship was very different from the current implementation. It was more like the caste system that predated it.
That is a gross misunderstanding of the ancient Roman and Greek citizenship systems.
Especially as caste systems typically have zero social mobility.
There was much more to it than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana
I’m curious, what’s the argument against it?
Equal rights good, discrimination bad.