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.”
Should have addressed the previous to Northern Shrike. Sorry.
Well said Maz
But all contributions here are interesting.
Maybe we are being too egocentric here just like the Homelanders? Somebody who lives in Canada might have less of a problem with only one citizenship than another?
We just have to look back to Hitler to see how many many people in those times would have been saved if they had been able to leave. THAT was certainly a time when an american passport was worth its weight in gold. But have times changed so much? Couldn’t war and destruction happen again- anywhere? Wouldn’t it then be a Godsend to have a second passport instead of being stuck?
I’ll be unreservedly loyal when I get a cold wet nose and a waggy tail and not before.
Polly, this is certainly a consideration here in Taiwan, whose future as a nation is uncertain.
I would suppose that if you are a citizen of country X and you live in country X you owe a minimum amount of loyalty and respect to country X. You identify as such citizen when entering and living in country X.
When you live outside of country X you must show some respect to the country of your ciitizenship; if you have no respect, no love, or no link to a country you have citizenship of, you should probably renounce (the exceptions being countries that make it impossible to renounce, such as the USA). Self-renunciation fits the definition.
Ideally citizenship should be willing, almost a choice, or at least a choice you’d make if you could.
But it’s all a very complex matter, and there are countless examples of people without a citizenship who are much better “citizens” than those who have the legal papers.
Religions have also been known to expect or demand loyalty from their adherents. Several large ones forbid or discourage multiple religious identities, though others are accepting. Several do not recognize attempts to renounce membership in them, which thus becomes similar to ethnic membership. On the other hand, religions with centralized leadership structures and effective power over their adherents’ lives are the exception rather than the norm, and religious “nones” face few disadvantages that might be compared to stateless people, so the analogy isn’t perfect.
The distinction between implicit or folk religions and explicit ones somewhat resembles that between aboriginal groupings and organized nation-states.Citizenship in an unrecognized, de facto state (like Taiwan, Northern Cyprus, or Abkhazia) could be compared to membership in an unrecognized, newish religion like Pastafarianism. And starting your own religion would be like that guy who declared his apartment to be an independent country! Okay, I’m reaching here.
PS. Remember–the pope, the Dalai Lama, and the Agha Khan are all monarchs as well as religious figures.
Anyone who has lived in a country which goes through serious disruption, creates laws to suppress its citizens, experiences massive crime waves, is invaded by another, becomes ruled by a Govt that denies certain people their rights, experiences serious economic dislocation must seek a second citizenship as an insurance policy on their lives and those of their families.
If you are Libyan would you not want a means of escape to a more free country? or in years past, a Ugandan of Asian descent? Would you really be satisfied to stay and be persecuted? Like the Rwandans some years ago?
These circumstances have happened and re-occurred around the world repeatedly over the centuries.
Don’t judge people and circumstances that you cannot even conceive in an armchair in Canada, the US, UK (as examples).
If you have never gone to bed at night fearing the sound of your front door being kicked down by officials or by criminals then you may not understand these things.
If you have never been awakened at 3 am to face the business end of an automatic rifle or a wickedly sharp knife in your face you may not be able to understand these things.
If you have never faced the prospect of a Govt seeking to place strangers to live in your second bedroom you may not understand these things.
If you have never faced a prospect of a Govt announcing that they will tax all incomes over $20,000 per year at 80 or 90% then you may not be able to understand these things.
If you have never faced having to travel but only being able to travel with $50.00 then you may not be able to understand these things.
If you have faced marrying someone in a foreign (to you) country and want to move there to be with them you would be a fool to surrender your original citizenship UNLESS that citizenship is oppressive with defects such as Citizenship based Taxation.
The list is endless. Yet the country of your birth may reform and you may choose to return to help to rebuild it or to retire there or to be with family. In such a case you would be an idiot to surrender any of your citizenships.
Besides nationality and religion,another major form of group identity is language. Is it possible to be multilingual? Certainly, but there are limits, and multi-generational multi-language identities are even more difficult to sustain. Is it possible to “renounce” a language? Not really (unless we count my two years of college French), but it is very possible not to pass it on to the next generation. When people from different language communities marry, their language habits (“What language do you speak at home?”) take on some of the significance of religious choice or even ethnic identity (“What will the children be?”).
Race in North America can be very subjective, but there are legal consequences associated with various types of indigenous status, and possibly other categories as well (think affirmative action). Louisiana used to famously regulate who could be classified as “white” on official forms. The question of how to classify multiracial people, Hispanics, or people from MENA backgrounds have some bearing on the issue of dual nationality. To what extent society ought to accept one’s racial self-identity–possibly an eccentric or misleading self-identity (we have seen dubious, high-profile claims by whites to be blacks or Native Americans) –is now becoming an issue, and I suppose that is the closest we can come to the issue of renunciation. A few critical activists in the field of “whiteness studies” call for whites to abandon, deconstruct, or “betray” their race.
@Wilton Jere Tidwell
It is grossly impractical to require people to get judicial approval for exiting a country. Many have to leave in the dead of night. In secret. Carrying whatever little they can with them. Imagine East Germany and the laughter (and persecution) that would have ensued if a citizen asked for permission to exit. This is also why offshore banking is so important to so many. The ability to store a few shillings in privacy and security in preparation for leaving an oppressive state is vital. Canada, the US, UK and Western Europe have been the beneficiaries of such accounts being opened in their onshore banks to a greater extent than perhaps Bahamas, Cayman and other such “havens”.
@Nervousinvestor
Which is why Switzerland introduced bank secrecy laws in the 1930s. Good intentions in the beginning.
Sadly however, bank secrecy laws were abused later by people who did not want to pay taxes in their home country.
“do you confirm that (voluntary) citizenship confers NO obligations whatsoever on the citizen?”
As a practical matter, obligations are decided by the state–we don’t really get to negotiate, as in a marriage, although we might be in a position to shop around. It is however questionable how “voluntary” any citizenship really is, considering that statelessness is such a dire fate. Imagine a prison in which everyone not in a gang gets raped and brutalized. In those circumstances, do people really join gangs out of their own free choice? Another analogy might be with medieval oaths of fealty–an “outlaw” is someone with no lord, and thus no protection. We cannot approach our citizenship issues too idealistically, but make our choices based on various practical considerations (including money). No doubt our rulers do much the same. Their is no reason to valorize such allegiances, any more than we do with our employment contracts.
@NervousInvestor: well put. I completely agree. All the situations you cite also justify the right to have bank accounts in other countries, something America is now trying to discourage.
@Polly: absolutely. It is sad that abuse by a minority brings about a crackdown for all. In this case, even people who didn’t put money in Switzerland at all (let alone legally).
@Polly. To persecute and slam doors in the face of the multitude because of the actions of a few is absurd and unjust. Don’t take offense as none is intended. Search out the few if you will under your domestic laws but do not block the ability of the multitude to seek safety. The Swiss situation seems to have been just fine… Let other laws pursue those abusing the situation… Theft of Govt funds and so on. I have no sympathy for tax authorities who do not do their domestic homework but levy blanket accusations. Govts are intended dedicated to report to People… Not vice versa. When the vice versa starts growing that breeds Tyranny.
@nervousinvestor
Methinks it got to be more than “a few”. It became a racket. They took monies from foreign dictators that belonged to the people etc. It even got to the point that if you were employed in a bank, you had to do what the bosses said and that was to accept money with blood on it or else get fired. You know-any thing can be perverted. Even religion gets perverted – just look at the Inquisition or ISIS. Its like anything good can be turned into something bad, sadly. Now America is doing it.
@Polly
That does not mean that the mass of people must be more vulnerable to Governmental abuse.
Use other laws to search for Dictators theft of funds.
Stephen: I’ll take a stab at answering USC’s question from my point of view.
First of all, here is my dictionary’s definition of a “citizen”: “a member of a country, native or naturalized, having rights and owing allegiance”.
In my view, citizenship is also a relationship. Depending on whether that relationship is close or at arms’ length the application of the “rights” and “allegiance” referred to in the definition will differ. If I am a permanent resident in the country of which I am a citizen the relationship is as close as it gets. All rights and allegiance would be applicable to me.
But if I am not a resident of the country, or if my citizenship exists ONLY as a matter of law (jus soli), my relationship is at a distance and it makes no sense either for me to demand the full application of the country’s rights (i.e. why should I be allowed to vote in its elections?) or for its government to demand full allegiance (why should I pay its taxes?).
Most importantly, to be a “citizen” of a country means you are not a stranger. The right to be considered “not a stranger” is the ONLY reason I have maintained my nominal, arms’-length relationship to the United States. Unfortunately, since 2010 events have turned me into a stranger anyway.
@Polly
That does not mean that the mass of people must be more vulnerable to Governmental abuse.
@Polly
Use other laws to detect theft by Dictators. And to find out how people like Maxine Waters become worth 10s of millions of dollars on a Congress person’s pay.
“To persecute and slam doors in the face of the multitude because of the actions of a few is absurd and unjust.”
Unjust yes but not absurd. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that everyone who has US citizenship is a tax cheat, everyone who runs for president helps cover up burglaries, everyone who wears a Casio watch is a terrorist, and everyone who wears shoes is a murderer.
@Nervousinvestor
So then tell me how? Because that is the jackpot question. And also- if tax havens have merit- how do you stop the abuse of these?
Police the crime not the place where the proceeds might end up. Do your simple detective work, wear out your shoe leather doing old fashioned policing at home and leave the rest of the world alone. Find your own criminals where you live.
@nervous investor
The problem with the Swiss was that they didn’t say in their own juristriction where banking secrecy wasn’t a crime, they physically came to the US to court business.
““No more dual citizenship”: What say you”
Dual Citizenship so called, does not exist and its impossible for it to exist.
As a British Citizen I am also a Commonwealth Citizen because UK law recognizes that. I am also an EU Citizen at the moment because UK law recognizes that.
But it is impossible for me to be Irish in the UK or Canadian (I appear to be on paper) in the UK.
I entered the UK freely and voluntarily presenting a UK Passport and declared myself to be a British Citizen. Any vestiges of anything else are immaterial.
Growing up in America as a young lad I was struck when Americans would say they were like half German and half Irish. I knew this to be nonsense when I would ask to see the German toes compared to the Irish toes.
It is now years ago when Ginny gave me the final bit of clarity as she resoundingly rejects that she is a US Citizen regardless being born in Detroit.
The Master Nationality Rule is correct and solved this problem eighty years ago, it is high time that all nations respect the rule.
@nervousinvestor
They hit wall after wall of silence and secrecy with that method.