Professor Audrey Macklin wrote the following op ed that appeared in the Toronto Star today, titled "Dealing with Dual Citizenship".
Should dual citizens of Canada be entitled to the same treatment as other citizens? Prime Minister Stephen Harper wisely resisted calls to revise existing policy in the midst of the evacuation of Canadians from Lebanon, but announced his government's intention to review Canadian practice now that the evacuation is nearing completion.
Among those who questioned the evacuation, explicit concerns centred on those Canadians in Lebanon who had been living in that country for many years and had more or less relinquished their physical connection to Canada.
Some contended that Canada had no duty to evacuate these non-resident Canadians. Others insisted these Canadians at least ought to pay the government for the cost of evacuation.
The underlying claim is that certain rights of citizenship ought to be tied to ongoing residence in Canada. Living here, the argument goes, expresses one's commitment and membership to Canada. Choosing to live elsewhere signals greater affinity and loyalty to another state, and Canada need not take responsibility for citizens who choose another country over Canada.
The principle seems simple enough, but the reality is much more complicated as a matter of ethics and of policy. In this era of globalization, the transnational linkages connecting people to family, to employment and investment, and to other forms of relationships across borders have grown stronger, more common and more sustainable.
The rise in states' acceptance of dual citizenship worldwide acknowledges that these linkages are real, that they are mutually beneficial to sending and receiving states, and will only multiply.
Although it is conventional to think of this as an issue about dual citizenship in the context of immigrants who naturalize as Canadians, that perception is incorrect.
- Canadians may acquire dual citizenship by birth if, for example, one is born in Canada to a Canadian mother and an Argentinian father.
- One may be a Canadian citizen by birth, and live comfortably as a permanent resident in the U.S. without ever acquiring U.S.citizenship.
- One may be born in Canadato a Canadian father and a non-status mother who does not have legal status in Canada. Canada may deport the mother and she may take her Canadian child with her.
- One may be a Canadian by birth, marry a person from another country and move to live in the spouse's country. One may immigrate to Canada from the Netherlands, acquire Canadian citizenship, and then work and reside for several years in Saudi Arabia.
In all of these cases, a Canadian citizen will reside in another country. If the basis for withholding assistance to Canadians overseas is non-residence in Canada, then presumably the principle must apply in each of these cases as well. After all, there can be no rational basis for suggesting that birthright citizens who reside elsewhere have a greater entitlement to Canada's protection than those who acquire citizenship by naturalization — unless, of course, one takes the invidious position that those lucky enough to be born into Canadian citizenship are "more" Canadian than those who strive to acquire it through naturalization.
The principle that all citizens are equal is fundamental to our system of law. It applies regardless of whether people acquire citizenship by birth or by naturalization and whether they have one, two or multiple citizenships.
To depart from that principle would be to formally introduce second-class citizenship into Canadian policy: "Good" citizens would get all the rights of citizenship; "bad" citizens who demonstrate insufficient commitment to Canadawould get fewer rights.
The catalogue of rights that accrue only to citizens is quite short, but it does include the absolute right to enter and remain in Canada, diplomatic protection, and the right to vote and to stand for public office. Let's say we put a residency condition on those rights and grant them only to people who have resided in Canada for at least five of the last 30 years. I suspect virtually all Canadian citizens in Lebanon would have passed the test, but I can think of at least one candidate for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada who would not. What would it mean to actually subject Canadians to a residence test as a prerequisite to enjoying certain rights of citizenship? Should it matter how long one lived in Canada before departing? How long would one have to reside elsewhere before forfeiting one's entitlements?
Would visits back to Canada count in the citizen's favour? How frequent and for how long? Would the reasons for departing Canada matter? What if one returned to one's country of origin because, contrary to expectation and despite years of effort, one's professional credentials and education were not recognized in Canada? What if one went back to support and care for a sick relative and ended up staying longer than expected? What about the Canadian child who had no choice in the matter? What if one ended up spending 25 years in a poor and war-torn country to engage in development work? Who would make such decisions, according to what criteria and process, under what conditions, and with what recourse?
These are difficult questions and they bring to the surface unarticulated assumptions and values about Canadian citizenship that deserve to be discussed and debated. We should all consider ourselves invited to participate in the conversation.