Meet Accidental American Boris Johnson, Mayor of London

Update:  A kind reader of the Flophouse pointed out an error in the title of this post.  Boris Johnson is the Mayor (not Lord Mayor) of London. "The position of "Lord Mayor of London" is bestowed by the sovereign and is a largely ceremonial position in which the holder represents the "City of London", a much smaller geographical area. Boris is the Mayor of London. The current Lord Mayor of London is David Wootton."  I corrected the post title this morning. 

The United States of America allows for two methods for acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth:  jus sanguinis (through an American citizen parent) and jus soli (through being born on U.S. soil).  For the latter the U.S. has one of the most open-ended and generous terms around - the mere fact of being born on U.S. soil makes someone a U.S. citizen under almost all circumstances. (The only exceptions appear to be children of diplomats.)

Now it's very rare to see Americans grumbling about the transmission of citizenship via jus sanguinis (blood).  And that's a bit odd when you think about it because it's a status that is conferred , not because of anything the child did, but because he had a least one parent with that status.  Sounds strangely medieval, doesn't it?  A little like saying that just because your father (or mother) was a peasant (or a lord), you get to be one too.  How to square that with modern notions of  democracy and voluntary participation in a political community?  I don't think you can - this is citizenship as a kind of aristocracy since it has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with inherited status.  Not to mention that this form of citizenship transmission leads to some very strange situations.  For example, the child of an American citizen born abroad is usually granted U.S. citizenship no questions asked even if that child never sets one foot in the U.S. for his entire life while resident aliens actually living in the U.S. who (one assumes) are delighted to be there have to jump through all sorts of hoops to be naturalized and may still suffer discrimination in the U.S. on the basis of their origins.

The other method of citizenship transmission, jus soli (place of birth), is much more controversial in the U.S.  The media is filled with politicians railing against those "anchor babies" whose mothers allegedly slip over the border to give birth just so their children can be U.S. citizens.  There is a great deal of righteous indignation about this and a modest amount of energy expended to stop it.  However, the problem (and I question whether it really is one) of the "illegals" sneaking over the border to give birth is nothing compared to the millions of tourists, legal immigrants and visa holders who come to the U.S. every year to live and work and who sometimes do a very human thing while they are in the country:  have children.  Many of them merrily go on their way after a few years (back to the home country or to a third country) either not knowing that their children are American citizens or thinking that this citizenship is a status that goes away if it's not activated.   Not true. U.S. citizenship laws are strictly "opt-out" - one is an American citizen until one goes down in person to the local U.S. Embassy and renounces.  This involves filling out forms and paying a 450 USD fee.  It may even involve filing 5 years worth of back tax returns and FBAR's.  This is true even if the person in question was born in the U.S., left with his parents as an infant, and has spent the past 30 years thinking he (or she) is exclusively French, German, Chinese, or Indonesian.  Contrary to what the citizens of the "greatest nation on earth" might think, not everyone is happy to wake up one day and discover that he or she is a citizen of said nation.  Some are even downright angry about it especially when the U.S. attempts to assert its sovereignty over their persons.

Welcome to the world of the "Accidental Americans."  These are people who, through no fault or action of their own (they didn't choose their parents or where they were born) are considered to be U.S. citizens by the U.S. government and are flabbergasted when agents of said government reach out and hold them to the obligations associated with that citizenship.  "But, but, but," you may sputtering at this point, "They can't do that!  I'm French (or British or Chinese or German)."  Oh yes they can, mes amis, and they do.  The consequences of this "involuntary citizenship" can range from being refused entry into the U.S. (even just to make a connection to a third country) without a U.S. passport to being chased down by the American "fisc" for tax returns and reports on their local bank accounts.  The first can be dealt with rather easily - just don't travel anywhere near the U.S.  The second is a little harder to avoid these days since five governments in Europe (others to follow) have agreed to turn over information about these people to the U.S. government.  Yes, this means that European governments will be denouncing their own citizens (duals, mind you, who may not even be aware they are Americans).  This is going to be interesting to watch.

A surprising number of people are at risk here including some very high profile Europeans.  This brings us to the case of one Boris Johnson, Mayor of London.  Up until fairly recently Mr. Johnson was an American citizen because he was born in  New York, USA, something he was vaguely aware of but didn't really pay much attention to until this event in 2006:

"Last Sunday lunchtime we were boarding a flight to Mexico, via Houston, Texas, and we presented six valid British passports. As soon as the Continental Airlines security guy saw my passport, he shook his head. ‘Were you born in New York?’ he asked. ‘Have you ever carried an American passport?’
Yes, I said, but it had long since expired. ‘I am afraid we have a problem,’ he said. ‘The US Immigration say you have to travel on an American passport if you want to enter the United States.’ B-but I’m British, I said, and my children chorused their agreement. Had the guy stuck around a moment longer, I would have told him how jolly British I was — but luckily for him he’d gone off in search of reinforcements.
When the ranking officer arrived, the story was the same. ‘I’m sorry, sir,’ he said, ‘but you’ll have to go to the US Embassy tomorrow morning and get a new American passport.’ But I don’t want an American passport, I said, inspiration striking me. I tell you what: I renounce my American citizenship. I disclaim it. I discard it.
‘That’s not good enough, sir,’ he said. ‘I need some official document saying that you are no longer American...’

You can read the entire story here but the end result of this was, faced with this assertion of U.S. sovereignty over his person, Mr. Johnson decided that it simply wasn't worth it and he renounced.  In his words, "That’s it. Entre nous c’est terminé. After 42 happy years I am getting a divorce from America."

Is Boris Johnson's case really that unusual?  Not at all.   Look, in addition to the millions of tourists and legal residents in the U.S. some of whom will have children there during their stay, there are 6-7 million Americans abroad and many of them have children too (most of their children are also citizens of their country of residence) who are considered to be U.S. citizens by the U.S.  and are supposed to be holding U.S. passports and paying U.S. taxes.  Failure to do this means that these people are technically lawbreakers and tax evaders in the eyes of the U.S. government.  It really is that simple.

Another example close to my heart. Would any French person in the audience like to tell me where Anne Sinclair (famous French celebrity and DSK's wife) was born?  If you answered, "New York, USA," you win the prize.  And that makes Anne Sinclair and her children as American as apple pie and baseball.  If events had gone differently and DSK had won the 2012 French presidential election, France would have had its very own Franco-American First Lady. 

Alas, it was not to be. :-)

Flophouse Citizenship and International Migration Reading List Updated

Citizenship issues are in the news these days and I've been doing a lot of reading and blogging recently on this topic.  So I thought it was timely to update this reading list.  Out of all the books I've read in the past few months, these are the ones that made the cut.  New stuff is in green.  I highly recommend all the titles below - read them and you will never look at citizenship or migration the same way again.  Oh and this time around all the underlined titles take you directly to the book on Amazon (many thanks to a reader who pointed out this lack the last time I published this list).

International Migration in the Age of Crisis and Globalization by Andres Solimano (2010).

This is a very well-written, well-argued book.  The author is ambitious and confronts some of the most difficult topics around migration:  Why is International Migration Such a Contentious Issue?  Are Goods and Capital More Important than People?  Don't Always 'Blame' the North, and so on.

International Migration and the Globalization of Domestic Politics edited by Rey Koslowski.  Some very good insights into how international migration and diaspora politics affect politics back in the home country.

International Migration and Citizenship Today by Niklaus Steiner (2009).  A very fine book on the political, economic and cultural impact of immigration.  He frames the discussion around two essential questions:  What Criteria to Admit Migrants?  and What Criteria to Grant Citizenship?

Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices edited by T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer (2001).  This was one of the best books I read on the topic of citizenship with essays by Patrick Weil, Karen Knop and Richard T. Ford, among many others.   I particularly enjoyed Ford's contribution called "City-States and Citizenship" which was, for me, a real revelation.

States without Nations:  Citizenship for Mortals by Jacqueline Stevens (2009) A strong critique of birthright citizenship in all forms and a call for citizenship based on residency.  

The Perils of Belonging: Authochthony, Citizenship, and Exclusion in Africa and Europe by Peter Geschier (2009).  Outstanding read.  States make citizens and states can also "unmake" them.  Nativism and the never-ending debate over who really "belongs."

The Politics of Citizenship in Europe by Marc Morje Howard (2009).  A really fine study of the citizenship policies of the oldest member-states of the EU.  Read this book to grasp how citizenship laws have changed over time and the reasons why.

The Future Governance of Citizenship by Dora Kostakopoulou ((2008).  Good overview of the current citizenship models and a proposal for an "anational" citizenship framework.

Beyond Citizenship:  American Identity After Globalization by Peter Spiro (2008).  Excellent book that examines how globalization has changed the value of citizenship overall and American citizenship in particular.  Very thoughtful.  Very well-written.

Qu'est-ce qu'un Français? by Patrick Weil (2002).  Mr. Weil spent over 8 years in the archives researching this book and it is fascinating.  France has been something of a test lab for just about every combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship possible.  Everything has been tried and tried again.  I read the book in French but it is also available in the usual places in English.

Gender and International Migration in Europe by Eleonore Kofman, Annie Phizacklea, Parvati Raghuram and Rosemary Sales (2000).  If you are looking for some empirical evidence (as I was) for how migration, immigration policy and citizenship rights have different outcomes and impacts for women, this is a good place to start.

The Birthright Lottery:  Citizenship and Global Inequality by Ayelet Shacher (2009) An attack on both jus soli and jus sanguinis methods of transmitting citizenship.  Fascinating argument.

Aliens in Medieval Law:  the Origins of Modern Citizenship by Keechang Kim ((2000).  I've been meaning to write a post about this book since it has a very original take on the historical roots of modern citizenship.  I recommend it highly. 


Human Rights or Citizenship? by Paulina Tambakaki (2010)  Interesting ideas about how traditional models of citizenship and  human rights legislation are in conflict.

International Migration, Remittances and the Brain Drain edited by Caglar Ozden and Maurice Schiff  for the World Bank (2006)  This book contains a number of very interesting essays about the economic impact of remittances and brain drain/gain.  The editors point out that the potential for economic benefit for all parties (individuals and sending and receiving countries)  is substantial but policy decisions need to be made carefully (we are talking about people after all).

Let Them In:  the Case for Open Borders by Jason L. Riley (2008)  The author makes a very radical argument for simply opening the doors and letting people move where they wish.

A Few Odd but Interesting Books about Citizenship

Last year my spouse gave me an Ipad as a gift and it was love at first swipe.  I use it to take notes and send them to my mailbox but the finest feature is, of course, having Kindle and being able to order books from Amazon.  Instant gratification.  I find a book I want and I can actually have it in under 3 minutes.  When it comes to books I'm a little like an addict in a crackhouse.  As I delve into the topic of citizenship, I found a few titles a bit off the beaten path that some of you might find interesting.  All of them are good and have rather interesting approaches to the problem of citizenship in a modern globalized world:

The Future Governance of Citizenship by Theodora Kostakopoulou (2008) :  Modern citizenship has a 200 year old pedigree that is, according to the author, a bit frayed around the edges.  She argues that there are four main assumptions underlying the modern model:  priority, exclusivity, supremacy and cohesion.  These are things that are being challenged by globalization, technology and mass migration.  The current citizenship model is rapidly becoming obsolete but most efforts in the citizenship realm are just fine-tuning the existing model.  Kostakopoulou also uses elements of the existing model but what is interesting is how she divorces them entirely from the idea of the nation (that bounded national community).  Her model is based instead on domicile.  "Domicile could reflect either the special connection that one has with a country in which (s)he has his/her permanent home or the connection one has with a country by virtue of his/her birth within its jurisdiction or of his/her association with a person on whom (s)he is dependent."  In short it is about connections and "bonds of association" and not about nations.  She envisions three types of domicile that could be the basis for acquisition of citizenship:  Domicile by birth (jus soli), domicile by choice (permanent residency in another country) and domicile of association (based on a strong link between dependent and independent persons).

The Ironies of Citizenship by Thomas Janoski (2010):  Great discussion on the politics of granting citizenship.  Naturalization rates in modern countries vary enormously from state to state:  Canada has a very high rate, Germany has a very low rate and the U.S. has a declining rate. In some states it's very easy to become a citizen and in others it is very difficult. Jonoski argues that the first step is to stop tying reasons for immigration to reasons for wanting or allowing naturalizations.  The two, he says, are not necessarily tightly linked.  States can very welcome to immigrants but very hostile to grant them citizenship status.  On the migrant side there may be very good reasons to immigrate but not to take on citizenship.  His analysis of nationality policy looks at four types of regimes to try to explain why certain countries are open and others are not to naturalization and integration:

Colonizing countries:  These countries first tried to control their "colonials" by integrating them into the military and the bureaucracy which leads to some form of colonial citizenship over time.  Colonizing nations tends to be open to granting citizenship when colonials adopt the colonizing countries values. This is a lengthy process that unfolds over generations and in the case of long-term colonizers like the French or the British, leads to reverse migration. Yes, the colonies come "home."

Non-colonizing and Occupying Countries:  These are states that did not have significant colonies abroad BUT many of them experienced high levels of emigration.  "When former citizens reject their homeland by emigrating and the state does not develop colonies for the praise and glory of the empire, remaining citizens try to rationalize the rejection..."  Fertile ground for extreme forms of nationalism.  These states are highly resistant to granting citizenship to foreigners.

Settler Countries:  These are the once-colonized states that are now independent.  The ease of gaining citizenship in these countries is tied to three things:  territorial expansion, destruction of native peoples and managing labor shortages.  These countries tend to be very open to immigration and have low barriers to the acquisition of citizenship. Examples:  Canada, Australia and the U.S.

Nordic countries:  These states were not colonizers or colonized but they have very high rates of naturalization (almost as high as the settler countries).   The countries have small indigenous populations (Saami and Inuit) but that isn't the reason for their liberal naturalization regimes.  Janoski argues that it has to do with a particular kind of social democratic politics.

Based on the above Janoski has four hypotheses:

1. Colonizing countries will have moderate barriers to nationality established by nationality laws and a moderately high level of naturalization in proportion to their colonization throughout the world;
2. Non-colonizing countries, especially former occupiers, will have the highest barriers to nationality and the lowest naturlaization rates;
3. Settler countries will have the lowest barriers to nationality and the highest naturalization rates. Indigenous population decline in each settler country correlates positively with naturalization...;
4. Nordic countries will have residual barriers to nationality but moderately high naturalization rates based on cumulative left party power.

The Birthright Lottery by Ayalet Shachar (2009):  This one is probably the most radical attack on jus sanguinis/jus soli (or birthright citizenship) that I've ever read.  He/she makes the case that this type of citizenship is a lot like aristocracy or inherited property and privilege.  By virtue of sheer chance, some people are born into a citizenship by which (through absolutely no merit of their own) they receive certain benefits.  This is intrinsically unfair, almost feudal, and downright undemocratic.  The author says, "citizenship may be thought of as the quintessential inherited entitlement of our time" and asks "what is citizenship worth?"  Some of the remedies are quite radical and the author proposes instead another model of citizenship acquisition called jus nexi: a  "genuine-connection principle of membership acquisition, establishing that citizenship must account for more than the mere automatic transmission of entitlement."  Basically citizenship should be based on links, connections and a genuine "social fact of membership" - not just blood or place of birth.

U.S. Citizenship: Discrimination and Accidental Americans

I received a lot of email and comments about last week's post, Citizenship 101 for Americans. I want to thank everyone for reading and taking the time to write.  Based on what I received, I thought I would post a follow-up here concerning two subjects that generated the most mail:  Discrimination in the transmission of U.S. citizenship to children of U.S. citizens abroad and "Accidental Americans."

Let's tackle the discrimination issue first.   In my previous post I wrote:

A child born in China of an American mother who lived in the U.S. at some point prior to the birth and a Chinese father is an American citizen by blood even if that child never sets foot on U.S. soil.

This is true but it's not the whole story. As one commenter and several emails pointed out, there are U.S. residency requirements for that American woman that must be fulfilled if she is to transmit her American citizenship to her child born in China. Oddly enough, these residency requirements are different depending on if she is married or not.

Married: If she is married to her Chinese man and her child is born after November 14, 1986 then to pass U.S. citizenship to her child "she must have been physically present in the United States for a period (or periods totaling) five years prior to the birth of the child, at least two years of which were after the U.S. citizen parent reached the age of fourteen years."

Unmarried:  However if she is not married to him and the child is born out of wedlock then "the U.S. citizen mother must have been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of at least one year before the child's birth. This period of presence may have been at any time before this child's birth."

Yes, you read that correctly. A child born in wedlock to a married couple where one is an American citizen and the other spouse is a foreign national is an American citizen if the U.S. citizen lived in the U.S. for at least five years (two after the age of 14).  However, if the child is born out of wedlock to an American mother abroad the residency requirement is a measly 1 year on U.S. soil.

If discrimination against the married were not enough, I invite you to read the requirements for Americans fathers who have children out of wedlock overseas here (see the section, "Children Born out of Wedlock - Born to a U.S. citizen father and an alien mother")  It seems downright insane but, as one commenter pointed out, these rules were recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in this ruling, Flores-Villar.

So, let me get this straight (and correct me if I'm wrong):  The U.S. seems to favor transmission of U.S. citizenship to children of unmarried American women abroad who have the most tenuous connection possible (1 year residency) to the home country.  I would really appreciate someone explaining the logic behind all this because I, quite frankly, don't get it.

The second issue was that of "Accidental Americans" - those children inadvertently born on U.S. soil who acquire U.S. citizenship via jus soli and keep it (often unknowingly) all their lives unless they renounce.  Some of the people I talked to about this were not at all amused.  The most common reaction I've heard was "They can't do that.  I'm French (or another nationality) and to hell with the U.S. government.  I am not a U.S. citizen and I refuse to be considered one.  They can't enforce this."

I understand their anger completely. This is ridiculous and a democratic nation-state should not be in the business of forcing people to be citizens.  My take on it is that, whatever the circumstances around the acquisition of citizenship, an individual should be able to renounce or relinquish any time he or she wishes.  The U.S. does not make it easy or cheap to opt out and I think that is shameful. Is the U.S. really so desperate for citizens that it would hold people captive?  This makes no sense whatsoever  and is potentially going to cause major diplomatic incidents with other countries because, yes, it appears that the U.S. is trying to impose citizenship on these people.

How?  Well, the most obvious method to catch those "Accidentals" is attempted entry into the U.S. on a foreign passport that lists a U.S. place of birth.   The Isaac Brock Society is reporting that Canadians trying to enter the U.S. on Canadian passports with a U.S. birthplace are being hassled at the border and told to get U.S. passports or produce a certificate of loss of U.S. nationality (CLN). Phil Hodgen's blog is reporting that the Premier of New Brunswick, David Alward (Canadian citizen born in Massachusetts) is now having to comply with U.S. tax laws.  On the Europe side, the Lord Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, was caught in this trap and rather indignantly renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2006.  In France there is Anne Sinclair (DSK's wife) who appears to also be a U.S. citizen and who I assume has or will be required to file 1040's and FBAR's.  Finally, the brother of a personal friend of mine had a ghastly experience trying to go home to Seattle to see his mother.  He was traveling on a German passport (he had renounced U.S. citizenship years before) and was interrogated for over an hour at Sea-Tac before he was allowed entry into the U.S.   So they are paying attention at the U.S. border and anyone with a U.S. place of birth on their passport is likely to be questioned closely.

That was the simplest and most obvious method of flushing out those "Accidental Americans."  In the past, as long as they didn't travel to the U.S. they could live out their lives in blissful ignorance of their citizenship status and the U.S. had no way to detect them.  Enter FATCA.  Since these "Accidentals" have a U.S. place of birth, their local bank in Germany, France, the UK and other countries will know immediately that they are dealing with a potential "U.S. person" and will have to ask for further information to confirm that status.  If that "Accidental" cannot prove that he or she isn't an American citizen then the bank will be required to treat him/her as one and do the necessary reporting to the U.S. government.  I predict that once FATCA comes on-line and European banks start informing their clients of their status as U.S. citizens that there will be a mighty roar of anger directed at the United States.  A roar that may just be too little, too late.

So, my friends, I hate to break this to you but, yes, the U.S. government can indeed claim you as a citizen against your will and now has two methods to enforce it.  As for you Europeans accidentally born in the U.S. who are hoping that your countries will save you, it appears that at least five of them (UK, France, Germany...) seem to be delighted to cooperate with the U.S. government on this matter.  We'll see what happens at the EU level.

The Path to French Citizenship: Small Steps

This morning my spouse and I, having gathered all the papers for his CNF (Certificat de nationalité française), went down to the Tribunal de grande instance de Versailles.  I'm not sure how to translate that but let's just call it the courthouse.  To understand more about the French legal system and where the Tribunals sit in respect to other courts, Wikipedia has this entry which I thought was very clear and understandable.

Our business was completed very quickly.  I beeped on my way through security because I had a pile of coins in my pocket (train fare) that I had forgotten and so I was taken aside for a more complete check.  Then we took the elevator to the reception desk, got a number, and within a few minutes we were installed in an office and presenting our papers to the charming and very helpful young lady charged with such matters.  As I watched the different papers being passed across the desk, I asked my spouse if he had duplicates at home.  Some of the birth certificates were quite lovely, hand-written with beautiful calligraphy.

Since she was so pleasant and helpful I decided to ask about something that has been bothering me for some time.   I'll take this as an opportunity to tell a good story that you might find entertaining.

When I was married back in 1990 at the Mayor's Office in Courbevoie, the French bureaucracy and I got off to a bad start.  For a reason I no longer remember, my spouse decided to send me (newly arrived immigrant with limited French) down to the Mayor's office to apply for a marriage license.  It was a nightmare for them and for me.  They asked all kinds of questions like my mother's profession that I just didn't have the vocabulary to answer.  The low point however came when they asked about my future spouse's father and I replied that he was a retired military officer.  They then wanted to know his rank and if he had any decorations to which I replied (truthfully)  "Général" and "Légion d'honneur."

How to describe their reaction?  Disbelief, surely, and some amusement.  I was sent on my merry way, feeling very foolish.  So when I got home I called my future spouse (in tears) and he called his father straightaway.  His father in turn called the Army and they sent someone down in person to straighten this out.  The day after we received a phone call from the Mayor's office with an apology and an assurance that if we needed anything more, we should contact them immediately.

The wedding went off without any further problems.  My father-in-law wore his uniform and I seem to recall that they read off the entire list of his decorations (and it was a really long list).  There was a lot of vigorous hand-shaking at the end of the ceremony and I learned that the formal way to address my father-in-law was "mon général." It was only some time after the wedding that we looked at the Livret de Famille that we received that day and discovered that they had misspelled the name of the city of my birth, Seattle.  It was a minor error (I'm sure that the people at the Courbevoie Mayor's office in the year 1990 probably had never heard of such a place) and we were a bit reluctant to go down there and annoy them again (in spite of the phone call I did not get the impression that we were the staff's favorite people).  So we let it go and said that we would get it fixed eventually.

So here we are 22 years later and, given that I am going to apply for citizenship, now seems like a good time to take care of it.  So I asked about it and the young lady agreed with me that it should be fixed sooner rather then later.  We need to contact the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre and she gave us the number.

One step forward and one step back.  I will be glad, however, to finally get it fixed.  As I grow older, it seems almost certain that my final resting place will be here - most likely in a small village in the Limousin.  I'd like to know that both the official French records and the entry on the family tomb will proudly (and correctly) show the place of my birth:  Seattle, Washington, United States of America.

Breeder Documents

I first came across this term when I was exploring the different methods at our disposal to prove citizenship.  At first glance, I thought it meant "license to reproduce." Believe me, it's nothing like that. But what they really are is pretty interesting and of concern to all of us.

A very loose definition of Breeder Document would simply be:  a document that allows you to obtain other documents.  A birth certificate is probably the most common one because it establishes all sorts of things:  that you were born (good to know), where and when, and who your parents were.  That document can be matched against existing law in the country where you live to allow you to obtain other documents like a driver's license, an identity card, a voting card, a national health card and even a certificate of nationality.    In a lot of countries, if a person never goes beyond the national borders, it's possible that he or she may never have to have one.  In the first 20 years of my existence living in the U.S., it was completely superfluous (even for travel to Canada).  It only became necessary when I applied for a passport.  For those who do travel and, most importantly, for international migrants, this is often an indispensable document.  Applying for a visa may just require a passport but most countries want a little more information (the documents behind that passport) before granting you residency or citizenship.

Now this seems like an entirely reasonable request on the part of the receiving state but it assumes that the receiving country trusts your home country to have accurately recorded the birth and is now willing to certify that you are that person by issuing the document and putting an official seal on it.  Think about that for a moment - your ability to establish your identity is only as good as the trust that your host country places in your sending country and its documentation.

So do states really trust each other when it comes to breeder documents?  It depends.  There is a cost to not trusting.  Just imagine if every birth certificate presented by a potential migrant from Canada to France was considered suspect and other documents or even an investigation were required before any of these documents were accepted as legitimate.  Think of how much trouble the French authorities would have to go to (not to mention the time and money involved) to be 100% sure.  Think of how annoyed the sending state would be if they were asked to justify every document.  Not a very diplomatic move either since it does kind of imply that the host country thinks the sending country is inefficient or corrupt.   And what would be the benefit?  That the receiving state might catch a very small percentage of identity thieves?  I imagine most states have done a rough cost/benefit analysis and adjust their trust level according to what they know (or assume) about the other state.

That they probably do this does not mean that they aren't thinking about more cost effective ways to tackle the problem.  The EU issued this statement in 2009 concerning the reliability of breeder documents within the EU.   They implied that they were not even sure that member states should be trusting each other.  If that's indeed true then what about countries outside the EU?

And that brings us straight to a country with serious issues in this area:  the United States.  While Americans are very concerned (for security and immigration reasons) about false documents used to enter or stay on American soil, other countries have reasons to be a bit nervous about  breeder documents coming from entities within the United States.  According to the 2011 MPI report, A New Architecture for Border Management:

In the United States, breeder documents are issued at the state or local level:  there are 16,000 different offices that can issue birth certificates, and over 14,000 different kinds of birth certificates.
There are no common requirements and little consistency among them, and thus such documents are highly susceptible to forgery.  

Please note how carefully worded those two sentences are.  The first is a statement of fact and the second is a statement of fact with mitigating language tacked onto the end.  If we translate, basically what they are saying is the entire U.S. mechanism for producing breeder documents is decentralized to the point of absurdity and these documents cannot necessarily be trusted. They are implying both inefficiency and a strong possibility of outright fraud.  If any of you have another interpretation, I'd be happy to hear it.

This is a situation worth watching.  In all my time abroad I have never had anyone in France, Japan or any other country question my documentation from the U.S.  Up until now American citizens who travelled or lived abroad seem to have been given the benefit of the doubt;  beneficiaries of a "halo effect" conferred because the U.S. was perceived as an efficient, developed country with a certain amount of prestige and status in the world.  To the extent that people become aware of certain idiosyncrasies in the way the U.S. manages its internal affairs, we could see a bit more suspicion of Americans abroad and their documentation.  It could lessen the value of a U.S. passport and diminish the protection U.S. citizens receive when they travel.  It could also make it more difficult for U.S. citizens to get work or residency status in other countries.

Clearly we are not there yet and I should clarify here that there are many countries with worse processes than the U.S.  Nevertheless, the next time you hear Americans complaining about document fraud,  "illegals" and the like in the United States,  just remember that the U.S. is, in fact, the "tallest midget in the room."

The Path to French Citizenship: Certificate of French Nationality

I went down to the Japanese Embassy near Etoile last week to pick up my Japanese police report.  As always the Japanese consular officials were very efficient - I was in and out in under 15 minutes. I was dying to know what it looked like (and what is in it) but I will never know because it comes sealed in a brown envelope and I was informed (quite sternly) by the Japanese Consulate that only the French Prefecture has the right to break the seal and see the contents.

Another document we need is an official Certificate of French Nationality (Certificat de nationalité française) for my French husband and we soon discovered that Anne Sinclair was right - it is not as easy as it looks to actually prove that one is French.  What exactly is the purpose of this document?

Le certificat de nationalité française (CNF) est un document officiel, qui sert à prouver la nationalité française.
Il indique comment et pourquoi le demandeur a la qualité de français, ainsi que les documents qui ont permis de l'établir.
Il peut notamment être demandé lors d'une première demande de titre d'identité sécurisé (carte d'identité ou passeport), ou pour une candidature à un emploi dans la fonction publique.
(The Certificate of French nationality is an official document that serves to prove French nationality.It indicates how and why a person is French, as well as the supporting documents to support the claim.It can be required when a person first requests a secure identity document (identity card or passport), or when a person applies for a job in public service.)

Sounds like every French person has an interest in having one (just in case, mind you).  So how does one go about getting this precious document? Well, it depends on where the French person making the request is located (France, Paris or abroad) and whether or not he/she was born on French territory or abroad.  My husband's case is a bit tricky because he was born in Medea, Algeria in 1962 when Algeria was a French dominion.  In that case, we were told, my husband, once he has all the documentation, needs to apply at the Versailles Tribunal d'instance (which is happily not too far from our apartment).

Now that we know where to apply, we turned to the issue of what documentation will be required.  Turns out that this is quite tricky and depends on the category of the person making the request.  There are no fewer than five cases and they are worth examining because they are a snapshot of French nationality law as it is applied today:

Personne née en France, d'un parent né également en France (a person born in France of a parent also born in France):  This is the infamous double jus soli rule that says that anyone born in France with at least one parent born in France is French even if the parents and grand-parents were foreigners.

Personne française par filiation (French by filiation)  This is transmission of nationality by blood, also known as jus sanguinis.  Anyone with a parent who is French is French by right of blood (droit de sang).  This must be proved by producing documentation about one's parents and also one's grand-parents.

Personne devenue française par acquisition volontaire (décret ou déclaration de nationalité) (Person who voluntarily acquired French nationality by decree or declaration) These are the naturalized citizens who became French by either applying for it or by decree (it can be simply conferred on a person in some cases).

Personne devenue française pendant sa minorité, en raison de l'acquisition de la nationalité française par l'un de ses parents (Person who became French as a minor child because one of his/her parents acquired French nationality)  So this means any child with foreign parents who became French by naturalization during that child's minority received French citizenship as a result.

Personne devenue française par acquisition de plein droit à sa majorité, par naissance et résidence en France pendant 5 ans (Person who acquired French citizenship at his/her majority, by birth and residence in France for at least five years).  This is a combination of jus soli and what you could call residency-based citizenship.  The two requirements are that the child be born in France and have resided in France for at least 5 years during his/her minority.  From this it seems that having lived 13 years outside of France during one's minority still gives a child born in France the right to French citizenship.

My husband falls under the category of "Personne française par filiation" which means that he is now calling the authorities in both the Limousin and Normandy (his parent's regions of origin) in order to get official copies of their birth certificates and those of their parents (his grand-parents).  Frankly, he finds this all a bit annoying - his reaction seems to have mirrored that of Anne Sinclair.  He was also not amused when I suggested that he might find some surprises in his family tree - a Spaniard or an Italian, perhaps?

The delicious irony of all this, of course, is that the people who have the least amount of paperwork to provide for a CNF are the naturalized citizens (i.e. the foreigners) whereas the French who have been French for generations by blood and soil have to provide a pile of official papers proving Frenchness going back at least two generations.   Was this really what the Right had in mind?  Probably not.  So I guess we can just consider this another unintended consequence of laws designed to harass the "foreign" which result in enormous inconvenience for the "native-born."

Flophouse Citizenship and International Migration Reading List (Updated)

I've been doing a lot of blogging recently about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.  For every post I write I probably read 3-4 books.  I've come across some very good titles in my research so I thought it was high time I undated this reading list.  I highly recommend all the titles below - read them and you will never look at citizenship the same way again.

International Migration in the Age of Crisis and Globalization by Andres Solimano (2010).
This is a very well-written, well-argued book.  The author is ambitious and confronts some of the most difficult topics around migration:  Why is International Migration Such a Contentious Issue?  Are Goods and Capital More Important then People?  Don't Always 'Blame' the North, and so on.

International Migration and Citizenship Today by Niklaus Steiner (2009).  A very fine book on the political, economic and cultural impact of immigration.  He frames the discussion around two essential questions:  What Criteria to Admit Migrants?  and What Criteria to Grant Citizenship?

Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices edited by T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer (2001).  This was one of the best books I read on the topic of citizenship with essays by Patrick Weil, Karen Knop and Richard T. Ford, among many others.   I particularly enjoyed (and will discuss in a future post)  Ford's contribution called "City-States and Citizenship" which was, for me, a real revelation.

The Politics of Citizenship in Europe by Marc Morje Howard (2009).  A really fine study of the citizenship policies of the oldest member-states of the EU.  Read this book to really grasp how citizenship laws have changed over time and the reasons why.

Beyond Citizenship:  American Identity After Globalization by Peter Spiro (2008).  Excellent book that examines how globalization has changed the value of citizenship overall and American citizenship in particular.  Very thoughtful.  Very well-written.

Qu'est-ce qu'un Français? by Patrick Weil (2002).  Mr. Weil spent over 8 years in the archives researching this book and it is fascinating.  France has been something of a test lab for just about every combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship possible.  Everything has been tried and tried again.  I read the book in French but it is also available in the usual places in English.

Gender and International Migration in Europe by Eleonore Kofman, Annie Phizacklea, Parvati Raghuram and Rosemary Sales (2000).  If you are looking for some empirical evidence (as I was) for how migration, immigration policy and citizenship rights have different outcomes and impacts for women, this is a good place to start.

The Birthright Lottery:  Citizenship and Global Inequality by Ayelet Shacher (2009) An attack on both jus soli and jus sanguinis methods of transmitting citizenship.  Fascinating argument.

Aliens in Medieval Law:  the Origins of Modern Citizenship by Keechang Kim ((2000).  I've been meaning to write a post about this book since it has a very original take on the historical roots of modern citizenship.  I recommend it highly. 

International Migration, Remittances and the Brain Drain edited by Caglar Ozden and Maurice Schiff  for the World Bank (2006)  This book contains a number of very interesting essays about the economic impact of remittances and brain drain/gain.  The editors point out that the potential for economic benefit for all parties (individuals and sending and receiving countries)  is substantial but policy decisions need to be made carefully (we are talking about people after all).

Let Them In:  the Case for Open Borders by Jason L. Riley (2008)  The author makes a very radical argument for simply opening the doors and letting people move where they wish.

Testing the Loyalty of Dual Citizens

The Economist is reporting that the Dutch are proposing a new law that would limit naturalizing citizens ability to keep their nationality of origin and strip Dutch expatriates of some of their rights as well if they naturalize in their host countries. These people would become "ex-Dutch nationals" which would limit their right to return to The Netherlands and limit their ability to pass Dutch citizenship (EU citizenship) onto their children.

As I've written elsewhere, most states have reluctantly come to tolerate the idea of dual (or even plural) nationality.  It's almost impossible to enforce, there is an almost endless combination of jus sanguinis and jus soli laws to be taken into account, and globalization has dramatically increased the opportunities for dual citizenship to occur.  In the bad old days there were some very effective methods of limiting dual citizenship in Europe and the US:  citizenship passed through the paternal line and revocation of citizenship through naturalization in another state.  For example, there was a time when a Frenchwoman marrying an Italian or an American marrying a Scot became citizens of their husbands' countries even if they stayed in France or the US.  As a result of this their children were nationals of their fathers' states but not of their mother's - a very practical solution but grossly unfair and quite sexist.  These laws were repealed in the 20th century and just about everyone I've ever talked to thought this was a good thing.

That leaves the latter method, revocation of original citizenship upon naturalization in another state, which still gets some traction.  Very few people would argue that children or women should lose their citizenships because of factors beyond their control (a parent's citizenship, sex or marital status).  But many more people still see some justice in taking away the citizenship of someone who has performed an "expatriating act" like serving in a foreign military or voluntarily acquiring citizenship in another state.  From the receiving state's perspective (and the perspective of many citizens of those states) it seems right that naturalizing citizens declare their loyalty to one state only.

I think a lot of this is based on uncertainty about the intentions of naturalizing citizens.  Are they naturalizing out of love and commitment to the receiving state or are they doing this for reasons of convenience?   No state likes to be in a position of having to evaluate the loyalty of its citizens and, with people who have multiple passports,  there is the question of how that individual "ranks" his or her different nationalities.  Since this is ultimately unknowable, some states ask that these people reveal their intentions by publicly shedding other loyalties.  Demonstrate to us how important it is to you to be Dutch (or French or American) by going down to your embassy and renouncing your other citizenship.

In short, it is a loyalty test, and the test takers in the Dutch case are both naturalizing citizens and native-born citizens who live abroad.

If this law passes I predict the following responses:

1.  The Netherlands will experience a steep rise in foreign nationals who have residency permits (permits, by the way that allow them almost all the benefits of citizenship without holding them to any obligation other than paying taxes and obeying the laws) who will refuse to become citizens.  Since these residents do not feel that they can become citizens, since the price they are being asked to pay is too high, they will feel even less loyalty to The Netherlands and will see no need to integrate.  A result that is likely to exacerbate the issues Dutch citizens have with their resident immigrant populations.
2.  The Dutch overseas who naturalize in their host countries will unwillingly be stripped of their Dutch/EU citizenship and that will make them very bitter indeed.  It is not likely that these people will continue to feel much loyalty toward The Netherlands or have any interest whatsoever in working on the homeland's behalf.  In one swift act the Dutch government will turn these people from "unofficial good-will ambassadors" into something else altogether.
3.  The Dutch overseas who have not yet naturalized in their host countries might be reluctant to do so thus creating Problem 1 above for the receiving state.

Proposed laws like this one, and the application of the principle in places like the U.S., reveals something quite startling:   enormous insecurity on the part of some states in this globalized era.  It is as if they are unsure about their power to command the loyalty and love of their own native-born citizens and they seem to have zero confidence in the attractiveness and assimilating power of their own cultures.

It is an admission of weakness, not an assertion of strength, before the forces of international migration and mondialisation.  Furthermore, all countries that do this need to be very cautious.  If large numbers of Dutch abroad choose their host countries over the homeland, and resident foreigners refuse to become Dutch citizens, than we will all see what Dutch citizenship is worth on the global market.  Will this make Dutch citizens in the home country feel more secure and value their citizenship more or will it cause them to think less of it?  And is this really something the Dutch people want the entire world to know?

Proving Citizenship

There is a rather tense debate going on the U.S. over some state's insistence on having registered voters provide identification on election day.  The goal is a good one - voting is one of the last real explicit privileges of a citizen and it seems reasonable that Americans ought to provide proof of identity/citizenship before exercising that right.

However there are some problems with this and it's not just the American context that causes trouble, it's also true of France.  If any one of you were asked right here, right now, to prove your citizenship, would you be able to do so to the satisfaction of the state in question?  I suspect not since most of us don't carry that kind of information on our persons.  A driver's license, for example, is not proof of citizenship (my French spouse has an American driver's license and he is not a citizen of the U.S.), neither is a passport or, in some cases, even a national identity card or a birth certificate. To be absolutely100% sure that you are the citizen of the country you claim AND to prove that you are not also the citizen of another country you would need to do some research.

You would have to look at many things pertaining to your ancestors:   the birthplaces, marriages, countries of residence or territories and their status at the time of the births, for example. You might even have to know something about the history of the country since territories changed hands rather often in the last century.   Then, once you had all that information, you would need to look at the citizenship laws prevailing in the country of residence for say, two or three generations, the laws in force at that time in the home country and then look at whatever the citizenship laws are today.  Sound complicated?  Indeed it is and I assure you that you might just have a nasty surprise waiting for you at the end of all your hard work.  Consider these two cases which I think are excellent examples of the difficulty and complexity involved in proving citizenship.

In 2008 François Werckmeister, born in Switzerland but raised all his life in Alsace (i.e. in France) went to get his French identity card and his passport renewed and was refused.  Why?  Because Mr. Werckmeister's father was born in Alsace in 1909 when the area was German territory.  In order for his father to be considered French he would have had to request a "certificate of re-integration" which he apparently never did and probably never needed to since he seems to have lived out his life quite happily in France.  However this caused much headache for his son, who at 56, having never had a doubt that he was French, suddenly found himself not only a foreigner (Swiss/German) but also one who was "sans papiers."  This meant no identity card and no passport.  He did however at the time the article was written still have his voter registration card so theoretically he could still vote.  How ironic is that?

Leeland Davidson, a 95-year old World War II veteran living in Centralia (state of Washington) had a similar tale.  Born to American citizens living in British Columbia, Canada, his parents failed to have his birth registered in 1916.  That would not really have mattered if Mr. Davidson could have proven that his parents were born in the U.S.  Alas for him, his father was born in the state of Iowa several years before that state started issuing official birth certificates. So as far as the U.S. is concerned (and in spite of his military service) he is not an American citizen (he is Canadian) and if he wishes to become an American he must go through the process of naturalization - something that he is quite willing to do though he is understandably quite distressed at the necessity for it.

When I read these stories (and there are others) I came to the rather startling realization that the only people who can be absolutely sure of their citizenship status are naturalized citizens since they are usually the only ones who have had to go through the trouble of proving their former citizenship status in order to acquire a new one.  For everyone else, unless he or she can prove otherwise with the appropriate documentation, there must be a doubt.  

The good people who are so adamant about requesting identification/proof of citizenship at the polls might want to take this into account.  The only way any of us can know our status is to do the research and then have that researched certified by the relevant authorities.  This means, at the very least, requesting a "certificate of nationality" (something that exists in both France and the U.S.) from the Federal government. 

Since requests for this are relatively rare in the U.S., it is said that acquiring this document can take up to a year.  But if people are really serious about making sure that every potential voter showing up at the polls is, in fact, eligible to vote as a bona fide American citizen, then this is what would be required along with a national identity card (one would imagine a biometric card with photo) issued on the basis of that certificate.  And it is very clear that, if required to actually prove their status, some Americans who thought they were citizens would be disenfranchised and required to go through the naturalization process before being allowed to vote.  A rather sobering thought, isn't it?

Citizenship and Military Service

Of all the means of becoming a citizen one of the most interesting is the acquisition of citizenship through military service.  It used to be that such service was the duty of a citizen himself but today most Western democracies no longer include this as a duty of citizenship and their militaries are purely voluntary organizations.   Conscription in Australia ended in 1972,  in 1973 in the U.S., in 1994 in Belgium and so on.

It lasted a bit longer in France which is ironic because she is often considered the birthplace of modern mass conscription which was implemented during the French revolution.  The draft in the Hexagone ended in 2001 and my spouse, his brother and his brother-in-law all served before it was finally abolished by President Jacques Chirac.  I remember my father-in-law, a retired French military officer, having a number of misgivings about this.  He led, at the end of his career, the Fire Department of Paris which is part of the French Army and he was deeply concerned about how the end of the draft would affect that institution.

Military service and citizenship have always had a close relationship. Citizenship can define who can or cannot serve and, in some cases, citizenship laws are changed in order to make more individuals eligible. For example, it is generally accepted that in a democratic nation-state you cannot oblige non-citizens to serve in the military even if they are long-term residents.  So, a country that has a large population of foreign nationals (some of whom may have lived in the country for generations) cannot count on them to defend the nation in which they reside.  This has been an important issue in countries that based citizenship on jus sanguinis (blood) and deprived women of their citizenship if they married foreigners (their children took their foreign father's citizenship).  It was for this reason that Napoleon wanted citizenship to be based on jus soli (right of soil) - he wanted to ensure that young men born in France could not escape conscription.

He lost the debate, citizenship from 1803 on was based on jus sanguinis, and what he predicted did indeed come to pass.  Patrick Weil describes some surreal situations where the French Army would come into a village to levy troops and half the young men (born in France, mind you) would magically produce their Italian/Spanish papers and be exempt from service.  Understandably this action infuriated the purely French families in the village who were then obliged to provide more of their young men to make up for the lack.  It was for this reason that double jus soli became the law of the land - someone born of foreign parents who were themselves born in France automatically became a French citizen at birth and that was the end of that.

In the times of the European colonies the citizenship issue was a bit different since there was a real question of whether or not to allow natives of the colonized countries to serve in the military of the colonizing empire.  Allowing them to do so created a kind of debt on the part of the mother country which could have (and sometimes did) lead to demands for greater rights within the empire and possibly full citizenship for those who served.  In World War II over a million Indians and 120,000 West Africans fought for the British.  French forces that fought in Europe during that period included 12 Armees d'Afrique with many units composed of North Africans.  According to Thomas Janoski in his book, The Ironies of Citizenship: "in the late 1950's the composition of the [French] armed forces was only 31% European French, with the rest coming from or in the colonies - 30% Indo-Chinese, 17% North African, 11% Foreign Legion (mainly other Europeans) and 10% Central Africans and Madagascans."

In more recent times with more and more nation-states moving toward voluntary military service there is still that link with citizenship.  The United States of America allows for expedited naturalization though military service and it is estimated that there are 30,000 non-US citizens serving in the U.S. military, many of them in Iraq and Afghanistan.  France still has its famous French Foreign Legion and a foreign soldier has the right to French citizenship after 3 years of service.  Interestingly enough two countries that did not accept foreigners in their armed forces seem to be reconsidering the question.  Earlier this year the German Defense Ministry published a report which call for the end of conscription in Germany and a plan to recruit foreigners residing in Germany.  The Russian Defense Ministry recently announced the creation of a Russian Foreign Legion which also allows for the acquisition of citizenship after 3 years of service.

In general most countries (but not always their citizens) see this method of acquiring citizenship as being entirely legitimate.  An individual who serves a nation and risks his or her life on its behalf is viewed as someone who has earned the right to become a full citizen.  However this does raise a question concerning native-born citizens who, in many cases, are accidental or involuntary citizens.  They have done nothing concrete to earn their citizenship since it was simply conferred on them as an accident of birth.  For some reason (the origin of which I dare not speculate on here), it is often a loud minority of these people who argue most strenuously against immigration and naturalization in all its forms.

To those few (but often very loud) natives who argue against naturalization by service or who wish to limit the rights of voluntary citizens, I would ask this question:   do you live in a democracy or an aristocracy?  If the answer is the former and not the latter, then the acquisition of citizenship through service to a nation is not only just and right, it is the highest expression of true democratic principles because it explicitly connects the rights of a citizen with service to a nation-state.

And, from my perspective, the willingness to spill the blood that is in your veins in the service of a nation-state should always trump blood merely inherited from one's parents.

The Path to French Citizenship - Fernand Braudel and a Japanese Police Report

For me the path to French citizenship goes through the Japanese consulate here in Paris.  One of the items I am required to provide is a police report from every country where I have lived in the past 10 years and there are only two:  France and Japan.

Getting a French police report is surprisingly easy.   It can be ordered here from the Ministère de la Justice et des Libertés (The Minister of Justice and Liberties).  I was able to do it on-line and all they asked for was a scanned copy of my Carte de Resident.  It arrived in the mail just a few days later.  Mine is "vierge" which means I have no convictions for illegal activity here.  I was sure that was the case but it's very reassuring to have the paper that proves it.

Japan is a little different.  For one thing, they do ask you to justify the request and you must go down to the Japanese consulate and fill out the paperwork in person which I did last week.  A very cheerful and pleasant consular officer took me into a room, helped me fill out the forms and then took a complete set of fingerprints.  I think the last time I had this done was 46 years ago right after I was born in a hospital in Seattle.  It was quite messy - all ten digits were covered in black and I ended up in the washroom desperately trying to scrub it all off.   While I was doing that all my things (my purse, my residency card, my passport and so on) were back in the room sitting on the table.  You know, I didn't even think twice about it - it was as if by entering the consulate I was actually in Japan and in Japan you can forget your purse in a restaurant and it will still be there two hours later when you come back.  So there was nothing to worry about.

The process will take about two months - time for the Japanese authorities to check me out and, I imagine, run my fingerprints through a database. I will have to go back and pick up the results in person when they are ready.  Interestingly enough I will not need to get a translation of the document since it will be in at least four languages and one of those languages is French.  Hallelujah!

So, how do I use the next two months wisely?  Well, I am a bit concerned about the history test.  I never took French history in school and everything before the Revolution is a big blur to me.  However, some former colleagues of mine came to the rescue earlier this week.  I came into town on Monday, had lunch with them and then they dragged me off to the nearest Fnac (a chain store that sells books, DVD's, electronic equipment and many other things).   They sorted through what was available in the history section and gave me a big stack to choose from.  I selected one that seemed pretty simple and gives a good overview (no, it was not "French History for Dummies") and a second by one of my favorite authors and historians, Fernand Braudel, entitled L'Identité de la France (The Identity of France).  I'm about a hundred pages into it and I am already enchanted.  It's that good.  There is a wonderful map on page 49 of my copy that divides France up into different regions based on the material used for roofs:  tuile canale (like ceramic drain pipes cut in half), ardoise fine (thin slate), chaume (thatch), lauze de calcaire (limestone) and so on.

Just looking at roofing styles is a fine way to get some idea of the diversity of France.  This "patrie une et indivisible, parce que diverse et chatoyante..." (This nation one and indivisible, because she is diverse and shining/shimmering/glistening...)

Identity and the Politics of Diversity

This gem was posted on the Linkedin group, Gestion des Risques Interculturels (a forum I highly recommend to you). In this video the discussion about identity is led by Nadège Ragaru of CNRS and her two guests are Dominique Schnapper and Denis Lacorne. Brilliant exchange among the three of them and some excellent comparisons between identity politics in France and in the U.S. It is in French and I wish very much that I could translate it for all the non-Francophones since it really merits the effort. Alas, I am not equipped to do so here in my Versailles apartment. It is also rather long but I encourage you to watch it in its entirety - a subject as important as this one cannot and should not be reduced to sound-bites. I will give you the quotation (with my translation) from Amin Maalouf's Les Identités meurtrières that Nadège Ragaru uses in her introduction.

Depuis que j'ai quitté le Liban en 1976 pour m'installer en France, que de fois m'a-t'on demandé, avec les meilleures intentions du monde, si je me sentais "plutôt francais" ou "plutôt libanais". Je reponds invariablement: "L'un et l'autre!"
Ever since I left Lebanon to come to France in 1976, how many times have I been asked, with the best intentions in the world, if I feel "more French" or "more Lebanese." I invariably answer, "Both!"

Ce que fait que je suis moi-meme et pas un autre, ce que je suis ainsi à la lisière de deux pays, de deux ou trois langues, de plusieurs traditions culturelles...
This means that I am myself and not someone else, and what I am places me at the frontier of two countries, two or three languages, and several cultural traditions...

L'identité ne se compartimente pas....
Identity cannot be partitionned.

Identités et politiques de la diversité from CERI on Vimeo.

Dual Citizenship: Germany and Japan

In conclusion, a comparison of countries with very different geographical and historical situations demonstrates the weight of legal tradition in the establishment of rules for citizenship.  Substantive convergence takes place within preexisting legal frames and occurs only when states are subjected to important contradictions,  Historical traditions in the matter of citizenship were in fact modified when disjunctures appeared between the consequences of traditional law and either the interest of the state itself or that of individuals who could legitimately claim a right to become citizens.  Despite much academic writing to the contrary, there is no causal link between national identity and nationality laws.
Patrick Weil
Citizenship Today:  a Global Perspective

Despite traditional aversion to the idea of dual (or plural) nationality, it has become more and more common. No state seems to like the idea very much but most have come to some accommodation with it. There are many good reasons for this:  the desire to maintain some hold over one's diaspora, the hope that some will eventually return, the possibility of losing citizens permanently to another nation, the wish to bind immigrants and their children tightly to the state in which they reside, and the sheer impossibility of controlling the creation and application of other state's citizenship laws.

And, of course, things change: a country of emigration becomes a country of immigration or vice versa, borders settle or are reset, other institutions arise (like the EU) and must be accounted for,  and, let's face reality, people today are on the move more than ever.  I think Patrick Weil is right, national identity may be one of the least important factors when it comes to making citizenship law.

However, a few countries have had the reputation of being rather stubborn about dual nationality. Germany and Japan are known to be rather hostile to the idea and what I had seen up to now seemed to confirm that.   Then I realized that much of what I have read about German and Japanese citizenship law is fairly dated and so I thought it would be interesting to have a look at what these countries are saying today on the subject.  And what I came up with, using information from the their foreign consulate websites, showed a far more nuanced position.....

Germany:   Germany has a reputation for very strict application of jus sanguinis citizenship laws and some of the more scathing attacks on plural nationality that I have come across in my reading came from German courts.  However, a look at the Canadian German Consulate General website's page on dual nationality reveals something quite different:

While the German rules on citizenship are based on the principle of avoiding dual citizenship,this principle does not apply to children who receive dual citizenship through descent from their parents (e.g. a German mother and a Canadian father). Also, children born in Canada to one or more parent(s) who hold the German citizenship at the time of the birth of the child may be dual citizens by law. From a German legal perspective, children who have held two (or sometimes more) citizenships from the time of their birth for the above described reasons will not have to decide for either of the citizenships when they turn 18.  

Another German Consulate website (U.S.) confirms this.  In addition it appears that any German wishing to acquire another nationality through naturalization can also ask to retain German citizenship.  The request is called "Beibehaltungsgenehmigung" and is granted (or not) on an individual basis.

So Germany does allow for dual citizenship under certain circumstances. This has not always been the case and so one has to wonder why it was changed.  Patrick Weil's take on it was that German citizenship law was for many years influenced by its unstable borders (the division of Germany), the large German diaspora abroad and the presence of large numbers of immigrants on her soil.    So one could argue that unification meant that laws could be reviewed and modified within the context of jus sanguinis tradition to reflect new realities.

Japan:  The Japanese Ministry of Justice webpage, The Choice of Nationality, seems to be very clear on the subject:

A Japanese national having a foreign nationality (a person of dual nationality) shall choose either of the nationalities before he or she reaches twenty two years of age (or within two years after the day when he or she acquired the second nationality if he or she acquired such nationality after the day when he or she reached twenty years of age). If he or she fails to choose either of the nationalities, he or she may lose Japanese nationality. So, please don't forget the choice of nationality. 

Are there exceptions to this? Yes, it appears for example, that a Japanese national who is granted citizenship in another state for extraordinary service to that state (which many states do - including Japan) may keep it since he/she did not actually request it.

Also a quick pass through some of the message boards on the Net on this subject shows that at least some Japanese nationals simply fail to report the acquisition of another nationality to the Japanese government and continue to renew their Japanese passports.  And this reveals an important weakness in all laws limiting plural nationality by a state - just how is that state going to enforce such laws beyond its borders since, to my knowledge, there is no such thing as a worldwide citizenship database, in which all countries declare its citizens to other states.

A Japanese citizen abroad probably would have to do something very public in the host country for the Japanese to be aware that its citizen has naturalized in another state.  Something like election to public office or winning the Nobel Prize for Physics, for example.  The latter did in fact occur in 2008 when Yoichiro Nambu won and it was initially reported in the Japanese press that a Japanese had won the prize and then the unsettling news came in:  Nambu was born Japanese but at the time he won the Nobel he was a naturalized citizen of the United States.  This meant that, under Japanese nationality law, he was not a Japanese citizen, and so Japan was deprived of any claim to having a Nobel Prize winner that year.  

In response to this a committee was set up by the Liberal Democratic Party to review the nationality act with the idea of examining the possibility of allowing dual citizenship under some circumstances.  I was unable to find more information about the results of their deliberations.  If anyone has more information, please feel free to leave a comment and links.

As much as states would like to eliminate plural nationality, they face enormous obstacles in making this a reality.  Enforcement is simply impractical in many cases and may even be against national interests.  Over the years there has been a convergence toward tolerating plural nationality and, for all the rhetoric that comes out during election cycles, it seems highly unlikely that this trend will be reversed.  It is simply not in anyone's interest to do so.

The Narcissism of Difference

It is clearly not easy for man to give up the satisfaction of this inclination to aggression.  They do not feel comfortable without it.  The advantage which a comparatively small cultural group offers of allowing this instinct an outlet in the form of hostility against intruders is not to be despised. 

Sigmund Freud. Civilization and Its Discontents

I first came to France to live in 1989 after I had completed my studies at university.  Like many other migrants I was not sure I would stay but it seemed a fine adventure and I was young and in love, the family was more than welcoming and I thought the country was beautiful.  The differences between my vision of France and the reality became apparent quite quickly and the awareness of just how hard it was going to be to make a life here was almost overwhelming.  Finding a job was difficult since my French was poor and my credentials frequently misinterpreted.  Obtaining my residency card meant going to a clinic that resembled a factory processing cattle for a medical exam - the sheer humiliation of being part of a human assembly line waiting to be x-rayed and being asked very personal questions by the immigration officials.  And then there was the sense that my entire world had turned upside down and I could no longer do anything right. Life seemed to be an endless series of encounters where I was 
corrected or admonished for using the wrong words, not doing the proper thing or simply not understanding fast enough for the people around me. In this sea of uncertainty I clung to what I was, an American, with all the desperation of the survivor of a shipwreck clinging to a lifeboat.

Over the years, I did integrate. My French improved. I learned what to do and what not to do to such an extent that it became natural. I learned firsthand the power of culture to mold and shape us - even the way I thought changed and I reveled in the ability to switch from one language to another, from one set of cultural practices to another, with relative ease.  And that was when my motives for proclaiming my American identity changed.  It became less a lifeboat and more a statement of independence and an expression of difference:  a way of remaining a "neutral observer," someone in this society and culture but not of it.  I have genuinely enjoyed my status as "Exotic Beast" for many years.  Americans are a very small minority here in France and we enjoy a relatively high status.  It was a very comfortable place to be as it allowed me to proclaim love and admiration for this country while retaining the right to 
criticize it and comment on it as an outsider, a position which essentially absolved me from any responsibility for changing it or caring for it too deeply.

Re-reading Freud's words today I can re-interpret my actions as a kind of aggression against the world in which I live. And I had to ask myself, is this really what I want? To be be forever separate and turn that one part of my identity against a people who have educated my children, cared for me when I was ill, taught me their language, and given me opportunities to live and prosper and raise my children?

Amin Maalouf says that everyone from time to time should perform an "examen d'identité" (an examination of identity) similar to an examination of conscience. This exercise is useful, he believes, not in order to find the one true identity that defines us but with an entirely different objective:

Je fouille ma mémoire pour débusquer le plus grand nombre d'éléments de mon identité, je les rassemble, je les aligne, je n'en renie aucun.
I search my memory to flush out the maximum number of elements of my identity, I put them together, I align them, and I deny none of them.
Chacune de mes appartenances me relie à un grand nombre de personnes; cependant, plus les appartenances que je prends en compte sont nombreuses, plus mon identité s'avère spécifique.
Each one of my adherences connects me to a large number of people;  however, the more groups I belong to, the more my identity proves to be specific.
Grâce a chacune de mes appartenances, prise séparément, j'ai une certaine parenté avec un grand nombre de mes semblables;  grâce aux memes critères, pris tous ensemble, j'ai mon identité propre, qui ne se confond avec aucune autre.
Thanks to all my adherences, taken separately, I have a certain relationship with a large number of people like me;  thanks to the same elements, taken all together, I have my own identity, which can never be confused with any other.
Ainsi, en considérant séparément ces deux éléments de mon identité, je me sens proche, soit par la langue soit par la réligion, d'une bonne moitié de l'humanité.
And so, when I consider separately these two elements of my identity, I feel close to, either by language or religion, to nearly half of humanity.

When I performed this exercise and I added together all the identities that make me what I am right here and now (American, Roman Catholic, French resident, Francophone, Anglophone, mother, aunt, sister, child, cousin, friend, writer, musician) I realized that not one ever takes precedence over any other. None are, shall we say, "predatory" in the sense that they require the extinction of others to live in me.  I am all those things and all these things can co-exist serenely in the same body and mind.  And, thanks to them, I can parse all these identities at any given moment to find a common link with the people I meet, the people I live with and the people I love. 

Becoming French would change absolutely nothing in terms of my material well-being.  As a legal resident I already have access to healthcare, to a French pension, to fulfilling work.  My children are already French so that decision is a fait accompli.  The only things I cannot do here as a resident are vote and work in the public service sector.   I have read Patrick Weil's work carefully and I understand and support the fundamental principles of the French Republic which he writes about so eloquently.  I have read the Charte that I will be asked to sign if my request is received favorably and there is nothing in it I do not adhere to.  This is not a hasty decision - on the contrary, it has taken me nearly 20 years of reflection to arrive here.  And, finally, the French nation is not asking me to renounce or deny any other part of my identity. French citizenship is not at all "predatory" and does not require that I erase my other identities, be they religious, linguistic or family, in order to hold exclusive allegiance in my person.  All I am being asked to do is open my heart and mind and make an equal space for a French one.

It is in that spirit that I am making my request for citizenship.   I want to confirm publicly what I feel in common with 65 million other French people in the world and not spend the rest of my life as a narcissist of difference, proclaiming one part of my identity, when what I really want is to express my gratitude and my profound attachment to this country.