Global Citizens for Facebook and Twitter - MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theGlobal Citizens for Facebook and Twitter. Answer: Global citizenship refers to the responsibilities and rights that people have because of their membership to the global entity. These people refers themselves as global citizens because they have an access to the global world which has been made possible due to the emergences and development of the necessary resources that can be used for purposes of promoting the principles of global citizenship (Shachar 2014). For example, one of the tools of globalization that promotes the emergence of global citizenship is the social media. Tools of the social media such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have made it possible for people to connect with one another all over the world. Additionally, there is the development of transportation infrastructures that connect various cities of the world together (Noddings 2005). Examples include the electric train systems that make it easier to connect one town with another. On this note, the idea of global citizenship is the fact that the identity of a person transcends across political boundaries and their geographical locations, and the rights of people emanates from the membership of these people in the global community. States are important actors in this concept of global citizenship, and this is because they are the ones who are responsible for promoting it, due to the policies and laws they enact. Despite the emergence of global citizenship, there are a number of challenges that states face, in a bid to promote and ensure that this concept of global citizenship thrives (Dower and Williams 2002). These challenges center on the methods that the states should use to fight terrorism and limit the number of people entering into the state without breaching their rights. Terrorism is a big problem and challenge that faces nation states in their bid to become good global citizens. Terrorism has led to a number the emergence of a number of laws and policies that aim at reducing the way people communicate, move and associate with one another (Shachar 2014). A very good example is the Patriot Act which is a law that was enacted by the United States congress, with the aim of preventing terrorism (Joppke 2013). However, this is a law that seeks to limit the positive influences of the state as an actor in promoting the principles of global citizenship. For instance, this act allowed and gave authority to the government of America to use surveillance systems for purposes of monitoring the communication of citizens and non-citizens of America (Stewart 2004). It is important to denote that through the Patriot Act, the government of America got the legal authority to collect the metadata of all calls that are being made by Americans and any foreign calls that these Americans receive (Hollifield, Martin and Orrenius 2014). The metadata involves information about the telephone number of the call that is being carried out, the number of times the call is being made and the location of the callers. This kind of information is private information; hence, it is a breach of the privacy of people. However, states enact these laws for purposes of ensuring that they are able to fight terrorisms and prevent their occurrences in the country. Despite the noble intention of these laws, the information that is collected from such surveillance systems are not always terrorism related, but personal information about the social and economic lives of people (Roman 2003). Furthermore, a major challenge is whether the enactment of these policies and are a breach of the constitution of the country. For instance, the Patriot Act has been accused of breaching the probable clause that is contained in the 4th Amendment, which restricts law enforcement officers from carrying out surveillance on an individual, if they cannot prove that the person is associated or is seeking to carry out some criminal activities (Hollifield, Martin and Orrenius 2014). It is important to note that global citizenship thrives on the idea of a freedom of communication, association and movement (Faist and Kivisto 2007). However, to limit the manner which people communicate through unnecessary surveillance systems has the capability of negatively affecting the manner which people communicate with one another; hence, frustrating the development and promotion of global citizenship. Another controversial law that has been scrapped by the European Union because it breaches the fundamental rights of global citizens is the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (Hollifield, Martin and Orrenius 2014). This is a law that was enacted by the United Kingdom and it aimed at preventing terrorism in the state. However, its provision of detaining terror suspects without trial was found to be unlawful and unacceptable by the European Courts of Human Rights (Shachar 2014). As part of the European Union, the United Kingdom had a duty and obligation to respect these laws and rulings. Furthermore, issues of immigration are very sensitive and states are always challenged by notions of nationalism while coming up with anti-immigration policies. It is important to note that the free movement of goods and people is one of the elements of global citizenship, and frustrating this freedom of movement, would mean that a state frustrates the progress of global citizenship (Booth and Dunne 2002). For instance, one of the factors that made United Kingdom to vote against the EU membership is the fact that they wanted the government to initiate strict immigration laws that will help to make it easier for local people to get jobs. Voters felt that the UK membership to the EU opened borders for foreigners who came into the country and this led to unnecessary competition for the resources of the country (Shachar 2007). America also has some challenges with immigration policies, and it is always a subject of intense political debate that can affect the outcome of a presidential election. For example, President Trump is known to have very hardline immigration policies, and this was better seen by the policy he initiated which aimed at preventing people from six majority Muslims countries from entering America. Some of these countries are Sudan, Syria, Iran, Yemen, etc. The court prevented the implementation of this policy, arguing that it was a breach of the rights of the people conc erned, and such a policy was unconstitutional because it promoted racial and religious profiling. Other policies include the need to build a wall along the Mexican borders for purposes of regulating immigration. Finally, terrorism and immigration are some of the challenges that states face in their bid to become good global citizens. Because of terrorism, states are forced to come up with draconian legislations aimed at containing terror attacks, and examples are the Patriots Act and the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of the United Kingdom. However, these laws are criticized because they are seen as breaching the constitutionally rights of the citizens of the country. On the other hand, the bid to promote nationalism forces countries to implement strict anti-immigration laws that results to frustrating the promotion of global citizenship. This is one of the reasons that made people of the United Kingdom to vote against the EU membership, a vote that is always called Brexit. Reference List Booth, K. and Dunne, T., 2002.Worlds in collision: terror and the future of global order(pp. v-379). Palgrave Macmillan. Dower, N. and Williams, J., 2002.Global citizenship: A critical introduction. Taylor Francis. Faist, T. and Kivisto, P. eds., 2007.Dual citizenship in global perspective: From unitary to multiple citizenship. Palgrave Macmillan. Hollifield, J., Martin, P. and Orrenius, P., 2014.Controlling immigration: A global perspective. Stanford University Press. Joppke, C., 2013. Through the European looking glass: citizenship tests in the USA, Australia, and Canada.Citizenship studies,17(1), pp.1-15. Noddings, N. ed., 2005.Educating citizens for global awareness. Teachers College Press. Roman, L.G., 2003. Education and the contested meanings of global citizenship.Journal of educational change,4(3), pp.269-293. Shachar, A., 2014. Introduction: Citizenship and the Right to have Rights. Shachar, A., 2007. The worth of citizenship in an unequal world.Theoretical Inquiries in Law,8(2), pp.367-388. Stewart, C., 2004. The Rule of Law and the Tinkerbell Effect: Theoretical Considerations, Criticisms and Justifications for the Rule of Law.Macquarie LJ,4, p.135.