The Utility of Dual Citizenship
That might better be stated as the futility of dual citizenship in today's world. People hate to give up membership in something which has great meaning to them, so they hold on to a citizenship which was theirs at birth, while embracing a citizenship conferred upon them by a welcoming second country, often a country of refuge from their previous country. Is it loyalty that compels people to cling to their previous citizenship, a cloying sentimentalism, or a world-weary cynicism that has people hedging their bets?Holding dual citizenship, while travelling in the country of birth or original citizenship, renders the second citizenship mute. It is the temporary-host country, the original country of citizenship, which has the upper hand. Should the second, adopted country attempt to assist its new citizen while under the care of the initial country, the outcome is fruitless.
If Maher Arar hadn't clung to his Syrian citizenship while embracing his Canadian citizenship, the United States would likely have sent him back to Canada, not to Syria. While Mr. Arar was incarcerated in Syria, because he held active Syrian citizenship, Canada's efforts on his behalf were largely ineffective, let alone - under the feeble circumstances evidenced by government representatives' disinterest - clumsily half-hearted.
Immigrants travelling to a country for refuge or as economic migrants have an obligation to the welcoming country which offers it citizenship. Immigrant-loyalty should be transferred to their newly-accepted country, and not divided between the one they've left and the one which has welcomed them. The welcoming country undertakes obligations to their new citizens to offer them a new and different kind of life with various opportunities likely unavailable to them before.
The immigrant, in turn, has the obligation to uphold the values, mores and laws of the new, welcoming country. In so doing, the immigrant is pledging loyalty to the new country and accepting the opportunities available to them as citizens of that country. In other words, an equal exchange of value for value given. There is no particular need to deny one's original culture or ethnicity, only to accept the values and traditions of the new country.
When, during the recent Israel-Lebanon war, 40,000 Lebanese-Canadians holding dual citizenship, were residing in Lebanon (some permanently, others for extended holiday periods, and still others for short-term vacations) and many were desperately attempting to leave the country for safety in Canada, the government of Canada launched a massive rescue, which ended up costing the country and the taxpayers $36M. Fifteen thousand Lebanese-Canadians were brought back to Canada, their expenses fully paid by the government.
A month later, with the cessation of hostilities, seven thousand of those dual citizens returned to Lebanon, many of them to live there permanently. This kind of nonsense defies intelligence. But it does describe a certain kind of milking of a too-generous system offered to citizens. If people feel that the government of the country which they hold citizenship in owes them the kind of safety-net that these Lebanese-Canadians so obviously do, then it should be incumbent upon them to offer something substantive in return to the government of Canada.
Loyalty in residence and taxation would do quite nicely. And as long as these dual-Canadians continue to insist on carrying dual citizenships they should be prepared to make their own arrangements and pay their own way out of situations of danger.
posted by Pieface @ Monday, October 02, 2006
<< Home