Do the majority still feel that dual citizenship, because of its many benefits, is a very good idea?
Some comments:
“I believe that people should be entitled to carry as many citizenship’s as they can obtain. It makes travel easier and then you are effectively not the ward of one state…If you have at least one more citizenship you are not beholden to any one state…I believe that you should have at least two if the option is available.”
“TOTALLY vote NO on “one-citizenship” rules. Citizenship should not be an issue…”
“No, dual citizenship should not be banned.”
“…What if they have to go back for a bit to look after elderly relatives (the U.K. does not allow people to bring their elderly relatives over). So, I think dual citizenship is fine, as long as people really have a foot in both camps.”
“I believe that multiple citizenship is a natural outgrowth of population movement and that it will be the norm by the end of this century…”
“…Dual or multiple citizenship keeps at least some power in the hands of the people where it belongs.”
“Good discussion. But there is little discussion of citizenship is or what it means…”
“…However, people often want to retain a second citizenship as a backup plan or alternative.”
“Why don’t we just eliminate citizenship? OK, not realistic ”
“Maybe we are being too egocentric here just like the Homelanders?…”
“…It is hard to understand why there is so much misunderstanding and prejudice around dual citizenship…”
“Amazingly not a single comment addressing the “obligations” of citizenship. Clearly since citizenship is regarded as having ONLY “benefits”, the time has come to abolish it in its entirety. It should be thought of as simply a “Club Membership”. You can work your way in and work your way out as desired. If somebody were reading this thread 50 years ago, he/she would be shocked.”
@bubblebustin
The Individual The State is to serve the People. Not vice versa.
It seems my last post was not formatted correctly.
The Individual.
The State is to serve the People. Not vice versa.
When British or French or Dutch etc went abroad in times past and occupied lands new to them, they remained Britain, French, Dutch etc even if they became Canadian, Australian etc in time. They retained much loyalty to their “Old Countries” and even waged war in their name. My ancestors fought in wars including WWI and WWII in Cdn and British armies despite being resident in Jamaica at the time. In earlier conflicts they served in other forces.
Citizenship requires fundamental loyalty but not for one to be a sycophant.
Sorry for the auto corrections which auto inserted bad Grammer above.
There is no way that I will accept without question all behavior by any Govt whether it be good or evil. Evil must be called out regardless.
USCA, I revised the title of the post hoping to provoke a discussion whether (consenting) citizenship “obligations” to the State are reasonable, but there seem to be no takers.
What about the “obligation-expectation” of some old-fashioned “loyalty” to the country of citizenship (vs. that to the Government transiently in power)? No?
The Government of Canada actually lists these “responsibilities” of Canadian citizens:
“Citizenship Responsibilities
In Canada, rights come with responsibilities. These include:
Obeying the law — One of Canada’s founding principles is the rule of law. Individuals and governments are regulated by laws and not by arbitrary actions. No person or group is above the law. [Well…., we are suing the Government over its FATCA-IGA legislation which violates our Charter [law].]
Taking responsibility for oneself and one’s family — Getting a job, taking care of one’s family and working hard in keeping with one’s abilities are important Canadian values. Work contributes to personal dignity and self-respect, and to Canada’s prosperity.
Serving on a jury — When called to do so, you are legally required to serve. Serving on a jury is a privilege that makes the justice system work as it depends on impartial juries made up of citizens.
Voting in elections — The right to vote comes with a responsibility to vote in federal, provincial or territorial and local elections.
Helping others in the community — Millions of volunteers freely donate their time to help others without pay—helping people in need, assisting at your child’s school, volunteering at a food bank or other charity, or encouraging newcomers to integrate. Volunteering is an excellent way to gain useful skills and develop friends and contacts.
Protecting and enjoying our heritage and environment — Every citizen has a role to play in avoiding waste and pollution while protecting Canada’s natural, cultural and architectural heritage for future generations.”
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/discover/section-04.asp
@Stephen Kish
I have no problem with the responsibilities as listed. Save and Except 1 when the Law becomes an Ass 2 the Law lies hidden from the man on the proverbial omnibus 3 the process of c
Creating law becomes a process of bandoolooism using devices such as Omnibus legislation to evade full debate and disclosure to the country of what is intended to be granted the force of law 5 when law is made not for the benefit of the citizenry but for the benefit of Tyrants and Foreign Powers.
“USCA, I revised the title of the post hoping to provoke a discussion whether (consenting) citizenship “obligations” to the State are reasonable, but there seem to be no takers. ”
The the responsibilities you mention would be the normal human behaviour of a resident, nothing to do with citizenship. A little like I don’t need to refer to a bible in order to work out that it’s a good idea to be nice to neighbours and why my entirely Polish neighbours are not behaving like savages despite their lack of citizenship.
Those who suggest citizenship is required for people to be decent are no better than the bible bashers who suggest that we all need god to know right from wrong. As I said earlier, I will be loyal once I get a cold wet nose and a waggy tail.
Loyalty is being able to say you were only following orders at a war crimes tribunal.
@Mike. I think that you have made valid points in your comment. There are two parts in this definition of *citizen*.
Here is a review for those of us who became Canadian citizens — *What are my rights and responsibilities as a Canadian citizen*:
http://settlement.org/ontario/immigration-citizenship/citizenship/rights-and-responsibilities-of-citizenship/what-are-my-rights-and-responsibilities-as-a-canadian-citizen/
The US says this of responsibilities of a US citizen — if you, I, or anyone (like my son) accept that US citizen moniker: https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities
“cit·i·zen”
I pronounce it ˈsitizən
“a Japanese citizen”
Japanese laws define citizenship as being registered in a family register (not counting comments or footnotes where spouses of Japanese citizens go). This used to be equivalent to residence, which is why we aliens had alien registration cards instead of residence cards, and some of us aliens put up a stink when an American seal swam in the Tama River and was given a residence card which we quasi-humans weren’t eligible for. Now we aliens get residence cards but we’re still in the twilight zone between residence and non-residence, and there’s a sharper distinction between family registration and residence now.
Now that I think about it, when Japanese citizens moved abroad they remained in family registers but there had to be some kind of distinction between family registers and residence, though of course not affecting our alienness.
“- an inhabitant of a particular town or city.”
Oops, that looks like a resident.
“synonyms: inhabitant, resident, native”
Oops, there’s resident in black and white, but how did native get in there? Native Canadian, where are you when we need you, and what happens if one of your relatives takes up inhabitance in Japan?
—
“The US says this of responsibilities of a US citizen”
‘Rights:’
‘Right to a prompt, fair trial by jury’
Someone needs to tell that to judges of US courts, who deny jurisdiction over refunds of income tax withholdings and deny jurisdiction for victims of embezzlements by IRS employees.
‘Responsibilities’
‘Support and defend the Constitution’
Including the fourth, fifth, and eighth amendments? How should US citizens do that defending, should it be by use of the second amendment when judges overturn the rest of them? (Luckily I’m not a US citizen any more so I don’t have to worry about what might be the answer to this question.)
‘Pay income and other taxes honestly’
Yeah, then why do laws and judges make honesty illegal and punish people who act honestly?
‘Defend the country if the need should arise’
Laws don’t permit that either. If you’re a conscientious objector to invading other countries, then the law prohibits you from bearing arms to defend the US when Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq invade the US.
“The the responsibilities you mention would be the normal human behaviour of a resident, nothing to do with citizenship.”
Voting and serving on juries?
By the way I do less polluting of Canada’s envirnoment as a non-resident than as a resident.
“Millions of volunteers freely donate their time to help others without pay—helping people in need, ASSISTING AT YOUR CHILD’S SCHOOL, volunteering at a food bank or other charity, or encouraging newcomers to integrate.”
Ah yes. An infamously good citizen was in the news recently. I’d better shut up now before I get banned.
Do the majority still feel that dual citizenship, because of its many benefits, is a very good idea?
@Stephen Kish….Irish and British is grand.
It’s still a good thing – many opportunities. Just too bad the US made it hellish to hold its passport abroad.
Japan doesn’t automatically grant citizenship to people who were, or are descended from people who were, Japanese citizens, second-class citizens who were enslaved during the war, who were Korean citizens before that and are Korean citizens again now, even if they were born in Japan and never set foot in Korea and don’t speak Korean. I think they ought to be dual citizens.
Neither Myanmar nor Bangladesh gives citizenship to Rohingya. Maybe both should.
If Ukraine can reunify, maybe Urainians who came from, or are descended from people who came from, Russia, should perhaps be allowed to be dual.
For people who can’t stand it, renunciation should be free.
From my perspective only, looking back at my family’s experience and present upset of not having one day go by without thinking of all of this, there should only an *Opt In* at age of majority and with requisite mental capacity with full knowledge of consequences along with benefits. Absolutely no one should be entrapped into what has been brought to us by US exceptionality, no matter the benefits or perceived benefits.
If we thought it was a good idea, we wouldn’t be renouncing in record numbers.
“If we thought it was a good idea, we wouldn’t be renouncing in record numbers.”
I don’t think so. A person could have 5 citizenships, and if one of them is US the person will still have 4 citizenships. The problem is something other than the quantity.