Multiple citizenships!

[Mr Rayon]

What are the benefits of having citizenship in multiple nations?

Is it in anyway a bad thing?

Overall does everyone thing it's a good thing to have?

Do you want to have multiple citizenships?

[lemur]

Nationalism is a form of "ethnicism," the same as racism. Nevertheless, it continues to be an institutionally legitimated form of ethnicism, unlike racism. Multiple citizenship has the benefit of expanding one's sense of national belonging but the detriment is that multiple governments may saddle individuals with multiple sets of expectations, such as taxes. IMO, national governments should be less possessive and behave as regional governments for the individuals living within the region at the time of representation. This doesn't mean they shouldn't take into account interests of other individuals globally who maintain a sense of connection with previous regions. It just means that national citizenship currently places too much emphasis on rights of birth and restricted naturalization.

Edited December 24, 2010 by lemur

[michel123456]

What are the benefits of having citizenship in multiple nations?

Multiple.

Is it in anyway a bad thing?

no.

Overall does everyone thing it's a good thing to have?

Yes i do

Do you want to have multiple citizenships?

Yes, but I can't.

As much as I know, it is not always authorized to have multiple citizenship. There are legal restrictions. For example, my daughter has a double citizenship but she will have to choose between the 2 options before the age of 21 IIRC.

[Marat]

Some countries allow dual citizenship while others do not. Some countries regard citizenship of birth as inalienable while others permit people to renounce their citizenship after they reach the age of majority. Generally, people acquire multiple citizenships for tax purposes, since by manipulating their times of residence in various places, or declaring their 'official' home in one country rather than in another, they can expose their assets to the less expensive tax rates in the country of their choice. This is why Richard Burton and other Hollywood actors have been 'Steuerbuerger' of Switzerland, or why Sean Connery is now a legal resident of Gibraltar. Occasionally, stateless persons seek to acquire citizenship this way rather than relying on the travel document made available to them by the United Nations. This is quite a complex area of law, so it is best to consult a tax attorney for the details if you are wealthy enough for this to be important to you.

 

Some countries even allow you to buy supplementary citizenships for various purposes. This is usually done by investing a certain amount of capital there, which often has to be capital investment beyond mere home ownership. Costa Rica is one such place where alternative 'investor' citzenships are available for a price.

 

Just as a curiosity, some people acquire citizenship in 'Sealand,' which is a 'country' which has been established on an abandoned English anti-aircraft platform anchored to the seabed in the North Sea. Sealand issues its own passports, has a flag, a national hymn, and a constitution, but ever now and then it revokes the passports it has issued out of fear that its 'citizens' may return, take up residence, and depose the present 'government,' which just consists of a very few people at any given time.

[lemur]

IMO, national identity is false-consciousness with instrumental effects/functions. When a government allows people to buy "investor citizenship," that is pretty transparently a kind of pyramid-scheme where you give other people money in exchange for the hope of winning money as a result. Still, ethnic nationalism allows for a similar type of pyramid-scheming in the form of tourism or sojourning. People are given temporary "citizenship" in the form of a visa or other residence permit, usually on the condition that they have sufficient money to pay their own way, then either their ability to make money is restricted or a general culture exists that "foreigners" should not 'take' jobs from "true citizens." This way, permanent citizens monopolize or at least maximize income-producing positions while tourism and other "foreign investments" are used to bolster GDP and thus create more jobs and higher income for citizens. Personally I think governments should PREVENT exploitation of people on the basis of (non)citizenship but they often promote it.

[Mrs Zeta]

If you commit a crime in one of the countries you are a citizen of, the other countries will not be able to assist you (even if you are a citizen of those countries). For me the only clear benefit of having two or three passports is to be able to choose the shortest queue at the passport control when I visit one of those countries (if the 'Citizens Only' queue is too long I go to the 'Non-Residents' queue and show them my other passport).

[CaptainPanic]

Because countries have made all kinds of stupid rules of what you can do, and what you cannot do just because of your nationality, it became quite important to have the right nationality. And "nationalism" also made citizens proud of their nationality... so they seem to think that there is a downside to having two nationalities... but there is not. It just means your country became bigger (because essentially you have two countries now). It just means that you qualify as a citizen according to the rules of two countries now.

 

Because of all the rules, regulations and restrictions involved with a citizenship, it can in some cases be incredibly convenient to have multiple citizenships.

 

If citizens are property of a country, then logically they shouldn't be allowed to change nationality... or to have multiple nationalities. But in a free country, the citizen is free, and a person is owned by no-one except himself. In fact, the people are the state (because that's how a democracy works). So, logically, a formality like a citizenship should never restrict the freedom of an individual.

 

The only issue I can see is that people are allowed to vote in multiple democracies... and are therefore able to influence the politics more than another. But I don;t know anyone who wants to change citizenship because of the right to vote. It's always for economic reasons, or for freedom, or other practical reasons. So, perhaps we should just disconnect the economic things from the nationality (like the European Union has done, when they allowed people from all countries to live and work in all other European Union countries - thereby making it utterly pointless to have multiple EU-passports).

[Marat]

Perhaps a solution to the desire for a new or multiple citizenships would be for states to permit an international citizenship market. Thus if living in the U.S. with U.S. citizenship had a lifetime value of $5,000,000 more on average than living in Costa Rice as a Costa Rican citizen, the two countries would permit the American to sell his citizenship to the Costa Rican for that price or any premium they might agree on. Since there are already published lists of the best countries in the world to live in for quality of life (the Nordic countries usually come out on top because of their low crime rates, generous social safety nets, and decent standard of living), this could serve as the basis for setting the international market prices, which would probably fluctuate according to developments in the economy, in foreign policy (the value of North Korean citizenship would now be seriously discounted), and climate change (with Tuvalu sinking, no one wants to live there any more).

[michel123456]

I was not expecting such a capitalistic idea from Marat.

 

"frontiers are scars on the visage of the planet" says a graffiti.

Edited December 27, 2010 by michel123456

[lemur]

Because countries have made all kinds of stupid rules of what you can do, and what you cannot do just because of your nationality, it became quite important to have the right nationality. And "nationalism" also made citizens proud of their nationality...

Nationalism often goes deeper than national pride, although that is usually part of it for anyone for whom it goes deeper. For many people globally, even those whose governments are supposed to neutral (i.e. non-ethnocentric) nationality carries ethnic connotations that bring with them ideologies of who "belongs" and who doesn't, who should have rights to work, access to social benefits, etc. Someone who feels no particular ethno-national pride might still feel that they "belong" more in one national region than another and they might feel like "their government" has a responsibility to protect or ensure their well-being whereas other national governments don't. Many people also feel a sense of cultural territorialism that leads them to naturalize their own language, religion, etc. and view others as less natural (i.e. "more foreign"). All these factors add up to systematic exclusivity and privileges for some and systematic discrimination for others. Race-based territorialism and discrimination became visible and questioned during the 19th and 20th centuries and presumably the same will occur for ethno-nationalism in the coming period. As it does, I would expect multiple citizenship to become more common and better regulated because the whole idea of ethnic-belonging would be eliminated from the politics of national identification. Technically, national citizenship should be as insignificant as which bank(s) you have accounts with.