It is accepted practice that individuals who reside within a territory are required to have a duty to uphold the laws of that territory (supposing I know what they are), which is all well and good if you have voluntarily decided to live in the territory in question, but what happens if your place of residence is forced upon you? What happens if you cannot choose? The right to request residency and/ or citizenship is something which nations grant to immigrants according to varying criteria; which on the face of it may seem reasonable; but what of the criteria which govern the citizenship of non immigrants? Were I to request the right to reside in Spain, the country could accept or refuse that application, yet as a child born in Spain that same citizenship would be forced upon me whether I would or no…
When we are born, we are typically born into a single nationality (although some people can be born into two) and this nationality provides us with certain rights – nominally those which are considered appropriate or inalienable by the nation in question, yet this is not a choice that has been made, this is a status which has been imposed. Those who are born into dual-nationalities may choose between those two, thus being afforded at least some choice, however if I am born into a single nationality I have no say over the matter, I have neither accepted nor agreed to anything, I have chosen nothing and there has been no mutual exchange of favours – I am simply ascribed a set of rights and held to a standard, whether I like it or not. Furthermore, as (in the example of) a British citizen I cannot renounce that citizenship unless I have another – either through birth or naturalisation – I can of course apply for citizenship elsewhere than Britain, but who’s to say whether or not they would accept me? So here I am, born and bound to be a Brit unless some other nation deigns to accept me…
Which brings me to the question, what hold should any government have over the citizens of the nation? Why should one’s nationality matter? The answer to this question comes back down to the inalienable rights that citizens of certain countries are afforded by their governments, and in truth they are not all the same. There is a universal set of Human Rights which was agreed by the United Nations in1948 – in which it is proclaimed (Article 15) that no one shall be denied the right to change their nationality, and yet despite this, on October 1st the Spanish government used force to prevent up to 7m of their population from voting for secession from the Spanish nation. Spanish Law denies the semi-autonomous regions from holding referenda for independence, just as the UK government denied the Scottish a second referendum on independence. Is preventing a community of citizens from changing nationality any different from preventing one citizen from changing nationality? Surely any such prevention is an oppression? I did not choose to be born in the United Kingdom, and yet British I remain until and unless another nation agrees to accept me. I cannot choose to start my own new community because that would require that I create a new state, which would require that another nation cedes a territory in which my nation could be founded – which is exactly what the Spanish government is trying to stop.
The existence of differing rights across the different societies, when linked to an inability to switch between societies, effectively condemns individuals at birth to suffer the conditions into which they are born… as a British citizen I have no automatic right to travel to the United States of America, but I am at least allowed to ask – were I Syrian my application would not even be considered under the present travel ban of President Trump. In France women have the right to have an abortion enshrined in law, whereas in Ireland they do not. In Switzerland, voluntary euthanasia is legal, thus granting individuals a right which they are denied in the United Kingdom. In many situations, one’s nationality has an immediate and profound effect on one’s rights, and yet we tolerate a society which denies the individuals themselves the ability to select their own nationality. How is this proposition reasonable?
The Declaration of Independence of the United States (1776) states that “…all men are created equal…” Yet this cannot be the case for as long as any country or nation prevents citizens of other nations from seeking to join their community. A country which believes certain rights to be inalienable, cannot in good faith defend the refusal to accord those same rights to another, otherwise those rights cannot be inalienable. Thus, whenever a country denies an application for citizenship to a citizen from another country, it is tacitly supporting the standards of the country from which the person is coming. Every single time an application for citizenship to the United Kingdom from an Irish woman is denied, it is equivalent to the British government saying that they support the fact that abortion is illegal in Ireland. I don’t expect the governments of the world to all listen to Britain, but I do expect that if a nation maintains a set of beliefs concerning inalienable rights, those rights have to be defended for all – not for just the citizens of one country.
If we deny people the chance to choose their nationality, then we deny them the chance to be truly equal. For as long as we tolerate the imposition of citizenship on children, then we tolerate oppression. No nation should have the right to impose a nationality upon an individual or group of individuals. Democracy can only work if the people in the democracy actively (and continually) agree to it – we cannot afford to assume people’s tacit agreement, it must be given freely. That surely, is the first right of citizenship.