using genetic markers for citizenship

[lemur]

What would the consequences be if governments would perform research to establish genetic markers common to all existing citizens? Would it be possible for them to isolate markers or combinations that would exclude all non-citizens globally thus allowing passport-controls to be replaced with genetic fingerprinting? If this was done, could people genetically engineer those markers into themselves or their pregnancies rendering citizenship uncontrollable? Could computers be built that refuse to divulge the relevant sequences/markers thus preventing "gene counterfeiting?" Could individuals be born whose genes were not sufficiently recognizable to the computers? What would the result be if people with different national citizenships had children? Could the computers be programmed to variously include/exclude such children on the basis of some algorithmic logic or would it confound the system entirely?

[John Cuthber]

This is clearly a non starter.

If I applied for, and got, US citizenship my DNA wouldn't change.

Citizenship has nothing to do with genetics.

How come you didn't realise that?

[lemur]

This is clearly a non starter.

If I applied for, and got, US citizenship my DNA wouldn't change.

Citizenship has nothing to do with genetics.

How come you didn't realise that?

I created this thread somewhat cynically. I personally don't think the idea of genetic commonality should be used for inclusion/exclusion generally. It is, however, one type of exclusionary culture applied in the mythologies circulated about ethnic similarity/difference. The interesting thing about using genetic markers to delimit exclusive populations of humans, however, would be that citizenship recognition/privileges could be given without regard to any other aspects of an individual, culturally or otherwise. That would allow people to go, learn, and become whatever they wanted to culturally, and even biologically in terms of having children, without worrying about loss of citizenship. People would probably end up genetically testing their fetuses to ensure adequate identifiers, however, which could prove ugly. On the other hand, if there were ways to petition for recognition of offspring and inclusion of new markers in the "national gene pool," it might not matter. I'm just wondering if it is actually possible to designate markers that would be commonly identifiable in all citizens but not in any non-citizens. You would think it would be if the criteria were completely arbitrary, since there is so much material to search through, but on the other hand it could be like trying to find a set of books that distinguishes one state university from another without overlap.

[Stefan-CoA]

Such an effort would be pointless. Because even if you identify markers that all people of one country have in common, other people from other countries will also have them (especially if, with each birth you expand the national pool). So are you going to forcibly nationalise people from other countries?

 

Also, I think the logistical effort of testing several million people would make this a no-go.

 

Plus, I don't think that you'll get racism on a genetic level. It sounds too silly.

 

Oh? You have 1152627 A/T?

No sorry, this is a 762793 G/C only beach.

[John Cuthber]

" I'm just wondering if it is actually possible to designate markers that would be commonly identifiable in all citizens but not in any non-citizens."

 

"This is clearly a non starter.

If I applied for, and got, US citizenship my DNA wouldn't change.

Citizenship has nothing to do with genetics.

How come you didn't realise that? "

[Marat]

Even if some vast computer program could store all the genetic information about everyone who now has a particular citizenship, as soon as children were born they would be entitled to citizenship legally, although genetically they would have new genetic combinations and spontaneous mutations, so they would appear to the passport-control computer program to be non-citizens.

[TonyMcC]

Surely the USA, like GB, has such a long history of immigration from many nations and ethnic groups that the DNA would prove nothing. In the case of the UK only a few people living in places such as the far South West and Wales would have DNA that proved a family history of "Britishness". In the USA I suppose only a few Native Americans could have DNA that proved an American family history.

[Marat]

Transplant medicine does give some indication of the relative biological similarity in various populations. When organs are matched for transplant, six or sometimes eight immunologically significant HLA groups are matched between donor and recipient, with special value being given to a match at the DR group. Getting a match by these criteria in much more likely in some countries' populations than in others. Iceland, for example, yields very high matches for random donors, while America, Britain, or Canada yield low matches. Since the function of a graft is improved if it comes from a family member as compared to a non-family member, even with exactly the same number of HLA matches, other factors are obviously involved, and again, Iceland scores better because of these subtle, unquantified factors, suggesting that Icelanders are to some extent like one giant family.

[lemur]

Surely the USA, like GB, has such a long history of immigration from many nations and ethnic groups that the DNA would prove nothing. In the case of the UK only a few people living in places such as the far South West and Wales would have DNA that proved a family history of "Britishness". In the USA I suppose only a few Native Americans could have DNA that proved an American family history.

Ok, so the idea is that some nations are "immigrant nations" and therefore would not have sufficient genetic markers to correlate with only citizens, which would also exclude all non-citizens? But there would be other national citizenries or ethnic groups for whom specific genetic markers could be identified and which would could be used to determine membership in an ethnic category? If so, would there be some benefit to keeping track of genetic ethnicity among people with multiple citizenship statuses? E.g. to have a global diaspora of Welsh ethnicity that isn't limited by British citizenship?