Dual Citizenship
Channel: The Philosophical Angle
Date: 2012-03-13

This week the concept of interest is 

Citizenship, Dual-Citizenship, and Immigration

Present in current political polemics is the controversy of Citizenship.  Within the concept of this topic are questions that arise about what should be the laws that govern U.S. Immigration, citizenship, and more recently, dual citizenship, or even multiple citizenships. 

To begin our understanding, let's go to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States whereby it reads as follows:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This statement indicates that citizens of the U.S. are born or naturalized and have privileges and immunities.  The Amendment indicates that examples of these privileges and immunities are the citizen's right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property.  It further indicates that other privileges are the enjoyment of the equal protection of the laws.

This understanding is commensurate with an historical perspective of the nature of citizenship.

Aristotle's characterization of the citizen was one who is capable of ruling or being ruled. Citizens are, first and foremost, as Aristotle said in his Politics, "those who share in the holding of office".  Hence, if a person can participate in the holding of office in the government, then that person would be a citizen. 
I would contend that without Aristotle's right of participation in the government, the people would be best described as "subjects."

Later in history, the Romans, as they created their empire, extended citizenship to the conquered people which meant that these citizens were protected by Roman law thereby extending the privileges of citizenship from holding of office to protection of the laws set by the Roman government; and thus, generating a legal status.

With this legal status comes the notion of political freedom which is the protection of the citizen from other individuals and from the functionaries of government.

More recently, it has come to indicate a community of people that share a common heritage, such as, a territory, culture, religion, and/or set of laws.

If we were to make some notes on this,

Totalitarian Society (Monarchy): Subjects 

Subjects plus Privileges/Immunities equals Citizens 
  (1) Holding Office (Aristotle)
  (2) Protection of the Law (Roman Law)
  (3) Political Liberty (Locke, et al) -- Protecting Individuals from Others and from the Government
  (4) Common Culture 

It is within this last concept of citizenship, that is, a people that share a common heritage or culture, or religion, that a controversy of the nature of citizenship begins to develop.  There is, now, an idea that a similar culture is needed or a will to assimilate into a national culture is required for citizenship.  Thus, in the polemics of immigration the first step in the process of becoming a citizen is to generate the rules to become a citizen which would be necessary in the setting of immigration policy.  Once a citizen, some questions arise, such as, whether dual citizenship is congruous with the nature of citizenship as dual citizenship is now part of U.S. policy.

Let's go to our panel for a discussion on the criteria for citizenship and immigration policy.  My first policy question is once becoming a citizen of a country, could there be a justifiable policy that would allow for dual citizenship?  I dare say the Athenians or the Romans, where the concept of the citizen has some roots, would not have allowed for dual citizenship.

Our panel: Mark Brennan, Professor at NYU
Richard Samuelson, Independent Investor