So is dual citizenship really dangerous?
January 19, 2012 | 8 Comments
The more I think about it, the more the issue of citizenship seems to beg greater discussion than the rhetoric thrown around when political parties want to attack their competitors. (Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful comments on the previous post.) And the debate is unavoidable, since globalization continues to advance it.
So Andrew Coyne is right: the issue of dual citizenship is not about NDP MP and French citizen Thomas Mulcair at all. It speaks to a larger debate not exclusive to Canada: statehood versus nationhood and how this manifests in individuals in the form of citizenship. Not surprisingly, the Economist takes a rather flippant and pragmatic approach, i.e. statehood, nationalism and citizenship are mere technical arrangements.
But statehood and being a legal resident of a state, which are concrete ideas, prompts one to ponder the less definable notion of nationalism, and this is, as Coyne alludes to, an issue of political symbolism.
In reality, being a member of a state is more than a series of financial arrangements. It is an emotional and personal status that people live and die for.
So in this context, I am still thinking about the propriety of holding dual citizenship while serving the public as an elected official. Something from Max Weber helped me to develop my thoughts on top of Coyne’s persuasive argument- that giving up another citizenship is a necessary sacrifice for holding public office.
Weber writes that a nation is a values-based concept that cannot be defined empirically, and that it is proper to except both solidarity and sacrifice from its members.
“The significance of the nation is usually anchored in the superiority, or at least the irreplaceability, of the culture values that are to be preserved and developed only through the cultivation of the peculiarity of the group. It therefore goes without saying that, just as those who wield power in the polity invoke the idea of the state, the intellectuals, as we shall tentatively call those who usurp leadership in a Kulturgemeineshaft (that is, within a group of people who by virtue of their peculiarity have access to certain products that are considered ‘culture goods’) are specifically predestined to propagate the national idea.”
In this context, it is making more sense to me that sacrifice (giving up citizenship in another country) is involved with nationhood.
But I have a problem mainly with the questioning of loyalty of a dual citizenship holder intent on running for public office in Canada. Most people who run for office are motivated by a genuine desire to serve their community. You could also argue that politics involves a lot of personal sacrifice already.
Furthermore, does holding public office not necessitate sacrifice? Does it not illustrate a public display of loyalty already? Does holding another passport automatically degrade one’s loyalty to one’s country of residence? I would think that, perhaps ideally, loyalty and sacrifice are implicit qualities required to represent one’s fellow citizens in a democracy, but maybe not.
And here are a few more scenarios to consider:
Let’s say an MP has dual American/Canadian citizenship. I could see a problem if he or she were debating a bill on, say the Keystone pipeline. There is a clear conflict of interest there.
What about a Hatian/Canadian MP who travels back and forth, helping to rebuild infrastructure and fundraise? Would we have a problem with that? Should her or she renounce one citizenship?
Should all those running for office declare their citizenships? Should this happen at all levels of government?
Should we legislate citizenship requirements for potential holders of office as globalization proceeds? If so, should we distinguish between people who actively sought dual citizenship, like Mulcair, and those who received it by familial ties?
Somehow, I’ve ended up with more questions than answers.
Tags: dual citizenship > nationalism > public office > statehood
Comments
8 Responses to “So is dual citizenship really dangerous?”
Leave a Reply
January 19th, 2012 @ 1:01 pm
Perhaps you may find some insight in asking what other affiliations a politician may be required to give up in pursuit of higher office (in practical, if not absolutely legal, terms).
We are highly sensitive to those with a lobbyist background, for instance.
Or: it was perfectly fine for a former general to seek and attain political office (say, Romeo Dalliare), but wouldn’t a currently-serving general seeking office be unacceptable (and not because we doubt their loyalty).
[Reply]
Jonathan McLeod Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Are there any rules about currently-serving generals holding second jobs? I would think serving as a politician might make executing your duties as a general difficult.
(Of course, a politician need not actually do anything, but I imagine that the Forces would assume that moonlighting will make certain demands of a soldier’s time, and craft policy with under that assumption.)
[Reply]
R. Mowat Reply:
January 19th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Certainly the military may have their own reasons to prefer this situation not arise, but I’d rather not get bogged down in the technicalities.
My point is that there are a host of affiliations that may not be appropriate for a political leader to simultaneously hold, and not just multiple citizenships.
[Reply]
January 20th, 2012 @ 4:30 pm
Really interesting article Kate. I think the issue of dual citizenship in office should be seen as something that adds to, not takes away from, deciding or being elected to serve one’s government in whatever capacity. I’ve always thought that nationalism, in whatever dosage, is a tricky thing and a potentially dangerous thing that sows the seeds of a more divisive discourse. More than that, I really do not think it matters…….Arnold Schwartzenegger, Jonh Turner and Stephane Dion being interesting cases…
[Reply]
January 24th, 2012 @ 7:54 pm
Excessive loyalty to any country really isn’t a good thing. This is amply demonstrated by the many horrors of the 20th century, most of which were carried out by people acting as loyal citizens.
We really should think of ourselves as human beings first, and as citizens of various countries second.
[Reply]
February 13th, 2012 @ 10:30 pm
Good question. This is one of the main reasons I’m scheduled to relinquish my US citizenship. After 37 years of living in Canada and 32 years as a Canadian I need to be fully committed. That can only happen as a full Canadian, devoid of any US connection. If I were take elected office I wouldn’t want there to be any confusion about decisions I might make and my motivation. I realize this isn’t a decision that most people would make but it is the right one for me.
[Reply]
R. Mowat Reply:
February 16th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
As an aside, Allen, are you aware that US citizens living abroad (may) owe US taxes.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=97324,00.html
[Reply]
Alle Reply:
February 28th, 2012 at 10:16 am
Yes. I discovered this in August 2011 and have been working through all the details, as required of me in respect to my rights/responsibilities as a US citizen.
I asked several coworkers if they would vote for a Canadian who had dual US citizenship. I was suppressed that they actually hesitated to answer. My point is that many, not all, Canadians are not comfortable knowing that there may be an American holder an elected position as an MP or MLA.
For me the case is clear, if I were to run for elected office I want there to be no question that I am focused on the interest of Canadians only.
Recently I discovered that my MP was born in the US. I haven’t confirmed that that MP still holds US citizenship but in the next election it will be an issue I will raise. I pointed out this fact to my coworkers, who also support this MP, and they were surprised.
In my opinion if you’re interested in Provincial or Federal politics in Canada you should be require relinquishing the second citizenship.
[Reply]