[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: PUBLIC: Re: dual citizenship

Administrative Note:

Week's Agenda: Political & administrative reforms

> What happens (theoretically atleast) to a persons citizenship status
> if the two countries whose citizenship he holds fall out of favor
> with each other? Does he become persona-non-grata in both countries?

As always, we return to the boundaries of our society! One of these 
days, we will debate that, but while we keep putting that off as 
irrelevant, I can't help but notice how wide-spread its impact it. Let's 
take this example.

Every individual's willingness to accept others as his/her equal is 
reasonably tempered by the expectation of solidarity. If a thief attacks 
my house, and you simply watch idly, then I assure you that when the 
said thief (or others) turn on you, I will likely not do much about it. 
My willingness to consider you and your property worthy of protection 
does not stem from altruism or good-naturedness. Instead, it is clearly 
selfish - I will do for you what you undertake to do for me in return in 
similar circumstances. 

With dual citizenship comes divided loyalties. I still have to fight 
when an enemy attacks. You (with a foreign passport, but no holdings in 
India, the Jewish wife of the Guyanese president is a good example) 
could be sipping tea on a Carribean coast. I agree with the observation 
that those who seek dual citizenship are essentially looking for 
privileges without obligations. The government may ultimately yield to 
their desires, but that doesn't make them part of my society. In order 
to be considered Indian, you must be a citizen. Without that, you can 
still be my friend, and I will introduce you to members of my society 
and they will mostly be nice to you as if you were one of us. But you 
are not. 

The problem with stating it like that is that it sounds crass, and in 
our refined worlds of academia and professionalism, we find no place for 
that. So we try to brush it aside as unimportant or not well-founded. 
The truth is quite the opposite. The Prabhu Guptaras of the world are 
great friends of India, I have no doubt of that. But they are not Indian 
citizens. That makes them something other than what I am. In every 
society, members are defined as those, who notwithstanding physical and 
mental deficiencies, are indistinguishable from one another. Somewhat 
more importantly, members are obliged to defend the interests of the 
group to which they belong AT ALL TIMES, not merely when it is 
convenient to them. Swearing allegiance to another group is hardly 
consistent with that.

I realize that many nations "permit" dual citizenship. Still, it is true 
in every case that each nation considers its hold on the "citizen" to be 
superior to that of other nations in which s/he might have citizenship. 
Nations simply look away from your second citizenship. If you explicityl 
stated to the American government that your alleigiance lies with the 
state of Israel, then the government is obliged to revoke your 
citizenship. The way dual citizenship exists is usually that the US 
government does not ask, and the "citizen" does not tell. Classic "don't 
ask, don't tell".

That's self-serving policy which works well for the government and for 
the "citizen". Let's not pretend that it is a recongnition that the 
whole world is one family. 

This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list:  debate@indiapolicy.org
Rules, Procedures, Archives:            http://www.indiapolicy.org/debate/