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.”
No longer possible because of gender equality although (as a number of countries do today) one could demand divestiture at, say, age 22. Except that many can’t afford the US price of $2,350 + tax.
There are some obstacles from European Union, religious and human rights law. And there is always the variant of “latent citizenship”: getting a divested citizenship back easily on demand (some countries), ancestral citizenship (Ireland, Italy, etc.), religious-based (Israel, etc), countries with no specific provision for divestiture (Iran, etc.)
Better would be to resuscitate the concept of “dominant nationality”: wildly improbable, I’m afraid. And unconstitutional in the USA.
I am going to have to strongly disagree with the premise of this. 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. But taxation should be based on residency. The reason that the USA’s citizenship policy is so bad is because of the taxation requirement.
If you have at least one more citizenship you are not beholden to any one state. Right now Americans can be prevented from leaving their country if they have gone afoul of the government. They can prevent you from leaving by taking away your passport. Now you are effectively stuck in the USA. I suppose not a big deal because it is such a large, vast and varied country. But if you were stuck in a small country and you only had one citizenship you would be effectively imprisoned until you could convince your local leaders to give you a passport.
I believe that you should have at least two if the option is available. This is often easier said than done, but it keeps more doors open in an ever increasingly protectionist, isolationist world.
Cheers,
Rocky
I TOTALLY vote NO on “one-citizenship” rules. Citizenship should not be an issue. What we need is a very solid “Master Nationality” rule. (Isn’t that the one that prevents other citizenships from affecting you if you don’t live or visit there?). This coupled with a “you only get what you’ve paid for” system (prevents citizens of convenience from calling on another country to bail them out when in trouble, ie Canada vs Lebanon) should do the trick.
Perhaps mono-citizenship does make sense in an elected politician environment though.
In these circumstances multiple nationalities should not be a problem.
Just my 10 RMB cents worth.
No, dual citizenship should not be banned. Re; “…‘…eliminate dual citizenship by requiring anyone holding dual citizenship to renounce one or the other and by stripping Canadian citizenship from those who fail to do this…” …”
I was forced to put off obtaining Canadian citizenship time after time when I looked into how to obtain it, because at the time I came to Canada with my family dual citizenship was not allowed by either Canada or the US via naturalization, and wasn’t made possible for . 20 yrs later. I had close family on both sides of the border and needed not only to be able to visit, but potentially to care for elders and a significantly disabled younger sibling in case of emergency. I would have had difficulty caring for my mother who died of cancer over an extended period if I had not kept my US status. I was next in line to care for my dependent adult sibling, and might have had to move to the US to care for her if Canada refused to let me sponsor her or it became a lengthy and difficult process.
I do not and have not had divided loyalties despite being born in the US and grown up in Canada. I paid taxes where I permanently resided and received services. My worldview doesn’t require me to say that I support one country against another regardless of ethics and issues. I don’t believe in blind nationalism and blind loyalty. This is even more relevant now that the world is far more global and integrated than when I was brought here to live as a toddler. I think I have been an asset to Canada even during the time I was not a citizen, and I was far more politically active than many of those born in Canada. I would have equally contributed if I had grown up in the US.
Some of the comments by people who want to ban dual citizenship are due to spite and envy because they take the position that duals have an unfair advantage for profit over their single status fellows. Any such advantage depends on many factors including economic ones. I haven’t benefited from PR and then dual status economically.
@PierreD,
Well said. There should be something in place that you can only benefit from the consular services if say you have resided in your country for the past year or something. But there should be no limit on how many citizenship’s or permanent residents, etc that a person has. It is not up to Canada to decide how another country administers their citizenship program.
This is an interesting article about a fellow who had eight different citizenships.
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2077576/case-canadian-eight-citizenships-and-why-worlds-rich
Cheers,
Rocky
@badger,
I love your thoughts and agree with them wholeheartedly. And I would have likely kept my USA citizenship if it wasn’t so onerous and expensive. The compliance costs just became more than it was worth. And I got out before the increase in the price. Albeit, just be a few hours.
I dislike the idea that you are bound to a country because of your birth place. And they “own” you. They will milk you for all that they can and then maybe even turn you into a beef cow as opposed to just a milk cow.
Cheers,
Rocky
In my opinion, we would be better off without dual citizenship, but I see no prospect for that. We live in an age of enormous migrations due to civil war, displacement of populations, disparity of wealth, and climate change. This creates a very large number of people living between worlds, and dual citizenship is part of that reality.
Let me, as a side-bar, ask an unrelated question: I am turning 71 this year and must convert my Canadian RSP to a RIF. As I have had my RSP and other accounts since before FATCA, I have not been asked by my bank about place of birth. I am somewhat apprehensive that this may come up when I do the paperwork for the RIF. Has anyone run into this problem?
Thanks.
Further to the previous: I intend to make this an internal transfer within my current bank, namely TD.
Another sign of rising nationalism. This is a very live issue right now in the face of Brexit in the U.K. People are unsettled by the rise of British nationalism and some people are adopting British citizenship to avoid the possibility of being kicked out after Brexit. The Dutch have said that anyone who takes on British citizenship has to stop being Dutch, but public sentiment in Britain is turning against those who are not native born and the Dutch don’t want to be cut off from the Netherlands or the E.U. 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. In light of this (and in light of the disastrous situation those holding multiple citizenship with the United States find themselves in) I believe it is vital that international agreement establish the principle of residence-based (or territorial) taxation for ALL nations.
I also believe in a residence-based right to vote and residence-based armed-service. One’s primary RESIDENCE should determine one’s “master nationality” because it is one’s home that one is tasked, by our very humanity, with the responsibility of protecting. There need be no question about loyalty. No one is going to fight in the armed service of a nation that wishes to destroy one’s home.
Publius: You touched on something I forgot to mention. It is also of paramount importance that any new international agreement on multiple citizenship make sure that the right to return to one’s country of origin be made utterly sacrosanct and that NO nation can erect obstacles to the free movement of people back to where they came from.
Our FATCA/CBT problem and the BREXIT issue as well are both great examples of why there needs to be an international convention on citizenship and related issues. It’s a new world and fair rules need to be established that will throw out the current injustices.
N0
‘Unreserved loyality’?!
That is a frightening concept, it reminds me of the very wrong type of Nationlism that has spurned totalitarian regimes.
What about those who have mixed nation parents, who may even have been born in a third country?.Which are we meant to be loyal to?
Dual citizenship works as long as it isn’t confused with taxation.
I’ve thought for years that in a perfect world, governments would have to compete with other governments to win the hearts and minds of citizens. I believe that governments exist to serve their populace, not the other way around. The banning of dual or multiple citizenships is nothing but an attempt by government to control and limit the freedom and movement of people.
A good government (or at least a reasonable one, as none are perfect) has no problem earning the loyalty of its citizens. A bad government, on the other hand, deserves to be rejected and face the prospect of its citizens leaving in droves. Having more than one citizenship is what makes that possible. Collectively, the governments of the world have far too much power. Does anyone really believe its a good idea to give them even more?
Canada didn’t compel me to become a Canadian citizen. I wanted to become a Canadian because the Canadian government through its good governance deserved my loyalty. Conversely, the US government through its actions did not deserve my loyalty so I “fired” it.
We on Brock have seen first hand how governments use citizenship to exercise ownership and control over citizens. Dual or multiple citizenship keeps at least some power in the hands of the people where it belongs.
I did my RIF at TD and they didn’t ask for the place of birth. I think because you are not opening a new account, It is simply an account conversion.
Re Tom Mulcair,
Politicians are a completely different kettle of fish. Governments are there to serve the people and their loyalty should be beyond question or influence. Many countries require a serving member of Government to hold only that countries’ citizenship.
@snow bank Thank you.
@maz57
In my perfect world we would have the option of completely opting out of a government all together. We would be able to travel to places where there was no government influence. Murray Rothbard, Hans Hermann Hoppe are among some intellectuals that have written about a world that they theorize could exist in this state.
Cheers,
Rocky
I think anyone who is a citizen of one country and wants to change alligences should be able to appear before a low court judge and change without a lot of rigamaroll.
All one should need is a letter from the new country accepting them and a letter from the old country releasing them. Nothing more or less than that. The subject a human to all the effort and uncertainty is cruel.
I believe that we are born with certain inalienable rights and among them is the right to live where we want. love who we want. marry or not marry, etc etc etc.
Keeping a person captive by imposing so many rules and conditions upon them is cruel and harsh and should be prohibited by every government on the planet. That said if a person does no play by the rules and doesn’t inform his host country that they are there, then harsh penalties should apply. Make it easy to change countries and you’ll get full compliance, except for career criminals.
No I don’t agree. For my family it would be a total disaster.
A lot of points I would have made have already been made in the posts above. On the loyalty issue, I would add that historically, a lot of the concerns have been directed at religions (esp. Catholicism, Judaism, now Islam) or race (Obama would favor blacks) rather than nationalities.
Here’s an idea. Imagine that the king of the world made each country decide on a stable number of citizenships that it would have to dole out, then establish the principle that all citizenships can be bought and sold. The Anglophone countries and Europe would gentrify as wealthy outsiders bid up the price of passports until the lower classes gave in and sold. A string of mid-range countries like Chile would probably receive a steady stream of Americans and Canadians who “traded down,” so to speak. Liberia and Sierra Leone would remain the way they are now.
For a twist, imagine that those who “sell out” are allowed to remain in their original countries, but without citizenship rights, resulting in a large underclass without rights (as happens today in the UAE and Qatar). Or that population-control measures require parents to purchase citizenship for their offspring.
Good discussion. But there is little discussion of citizenship is or what it means. Presuming that citizenship comes with both obligations and entitlements, what are specific obligations and entitlements.
At the present time there are many people who are simply considering buying a second citizenship. There is a healthy and growing market for this kind of thing. In general, I think the market for second citizenships is for people who want an “insurance citizenship and not a “replacement citizenship”.
I agree with Heidi that politicians in a high-level position should have one citizenship or one PRIMARY citizenship (not counting a dual citizenship with the UK because of the general governor/lieutenant gov.-type roles).
However, people often want to retain a second citizenship as a backup plan or alternative. For example, you might leave your country of birth and gain citizenship in Canada because you marry a Canadian spouse but if you become widowed or divorced, you might want to return to your birth country because of family members there.
Perhaps partly because I have lived in four countries and was a triple citizen up to last year, I don’t think like the 90% of people who disfavour completely open borders. Still, if you believe that freedom of movement of people is a fundamental human right there is no moral basis for border walls and citizenship-based restrictions. Just as Residence-based taxation (RBT) is fairer than Citizen-based taxation (CBT), Residence-based Rules (RBR) would be fairer than Citizenship-based Rules (RBR), Rules of behaviour need to be followed wherever you are, with penalties if you break the law, so we still need lines on the map to delineate jurisdictions. But barring people because they were born on the wrong side of a line on the map is not ethically justifiable. The blue-sky section in the 15 July 2017 Economist issue talks about the economic benefits of open borders and also looks at measures that could be taken to mitigate problems that would otherwise result from a too-sudden opening. Basically I would like to see a world where your citizenship does not matter. No taxation without representation – anyone who pays taxes should be able to vote where they live (but possibly, as the Economist suggests, only after they have had enough time to learn about the values and culture of the place). Those who would place allegiance and loyalty to one country above basic values of honesty, freedom, fairness and respect should be challenged. If your parents get divorced you might want to be loyal to one over the other, but you should not be forced to pick one. Be as fair as you can to both. Same with citizenships. Very little is black and white.
Why don’t we just eliminate citizenship? OK, not realistic.
You’re right krackerjack121, it’s not what we pay for CBT, but what it costs us.
Snow bank. My spouse converted recently at TD waterhse . They didn’t ask because they had the info on file. BTW, for ‘other citizenship’ they had previously entered ‘ N. A.’ even tho. they knew the horrible truth. A case of don’t ask don’t tell thanks to our friendly advisor.
Even for a new account they are not supposed to ask place of birth. For new accounts they are supposed to ask so called citizenship for tax purposes or something similar.