There’s a fundamental reason why I very much dislike these kinds of things. When you’ve set the precedent that citizenships can be removed it legitimizes that same action when it is applied in the other direction.
What is considered “treason” is very much subjective - the state simply should not have the power to remove citizenship.
When you say “applied in the other direction” - I read that as granting, rather than revoking, citizenship. Which doesn’t really make sense? I assume you mean an evil government revoking citizenship of good people, rather than this proposal for a good government to revoke the citizenship of an evil person.
There’s a fundamental reason why I very much dislike these kinds of things. When you’ve set the precedent that citizenships can be removed it legitimizes that same action when it is applied in the other direction.
What is considered “treason” is very much subjective - the state simply should not have the power to remove citizenship.
When you say “applied in the other direction” - I read that as granting, rather than revoking, citizenship. Which doesn’t really make sense? I assume you mean an evil government revoking citizenship of good people, rather than this proposal for a good government to revoke the citizenship of an evil person.