Something we don't appreciate
In North America, and in English-speaking countries in general, citizenship is a function of birth. If you are born within the boundaries of the country, you are a citizen.
It seems so obvious.
In most countries, however, citizenship is a matter of bloodlines. It is tribal, not geographical.
For instance, in Japan, it is a function of parentage. If your parents are Japanese, you are Japanese. If your parents are not Japanese, then you are not Japanese, even if you are born in Japan. But what if you are born in Japan, but your parents are not known, nor their status?
If both parents are unknown and the child was born in Japan, then the law says that the child is a Japanese citizen. This case has probably not been tested recently in the courts or otherwise, so the status of such a child will probably in reality, be stateless.
I bet if the child in such a case was clearly Japanese in physical appearance, he or she would be given citizenship. If not, he or she would be stateless.
These laws are the norm in most other countries where nationhood and cultural heritage overlap almost perfectly. Even though it is technically possible for a white person or a black person to become a Japanese citizen, the laws mean that virtually all Japanese citizens are, well, Japanese.
Hence this reaction:
More than 1,000 Japanese rallied in Tokyo yesterday to oppose allowing women and their children to inherit Japan's Chrysanthemum throne. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has promised to submit a bill to parliament by June that would put four-year-old Princess Aiko in line to ascend the Chrysanthemum Throne and enable her first child to succeed her. "Did the panel consider if Princess Aiko married a man with blue eyes after falling in love when studying abroad and the possibility that their first child would become emperor?" Takeo Hiranuma, a former economy and industry minister, told the rally. "This has to be prevented by any means." However, opinion polls show overwhelming support for letting Aiko rule.
An Emperor with blue eyes? Impure blood? Japan would fall apart!
If you aren't Japanese, you could be forgiven for feeling a bit insulted.
Hiranuma is not a bigot, as such, but is voicing a concern that we would find difficult to understand. For us, citizenship is a legal construct, not a genetic one. But remember too that even in Canada, this attitude has not always been universally applied. For many years, Chinese people could not become Canadian citizens, and up until 1923, they were subject to a head-tax by immigration authorities. Those throwbacks to a genetic component to citizenship are gone now, and good riddance. But while in Canada those sorts of regulations were inconsistent with the legal principles even when they were enforced, in places like Japan, the correlation between citizenship and your bloodline makes perfect sense. It therefore makes sense that the law should reflect that correlation.
Any change to the law that weakens that connection is going to cause a lot of consternation.
We've been working on this since the country was formed in 1867, and even before that. Despite this, Canada still has problems with bigotry, and probably always will. We should be thankful that we've had so long to deal with this. In most places, like Japan, they have no experience whatsoever with what it means for a fellow citizen to be different. That's too bad for them, because I've always thought that accepting differences, and ultimately ignoring them, was one of our greatest strengths.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Excellent post.
Posted by: thickslab at February 2, 2006 01:25 PM
Thanks. Sometimes I have my moments.
Posted by: Steve Janke at February 2, 2006 01:32 PM
Before we start pointing fingers, Canada is just as bad.
If you were born to US and Canadian parents, but depending on which side of the line you were born, you cannot become a Canadian citizen.
This happened a lot during the war years where Canadian guys went south to help with the Bomb and escapee's of the Avro Arrow chop job. Their kids have no citizenship in Canada.
I may have gotten the story mixed up, but I remember reading a big story in the Toronto Sun about war time vets kid's and such having issues becoming Canadians.
cheers
tom
Posted by: tomax at February 2, 2006 01:43 PM
That's a relatively common occurence, tomax. Again, it happens because we tie citizenship to geography. If you are Canadian, and you have a child while outside of Canada, there is a form you fill out and submit to the local consulate or embassy to have that child inherit your citizenship status.
That's how Alberto Fujimori was able to go into exile in Japan. Even though he was born in Peru and became Peru's president, when things went badly, he was able to take advantage of the fact his parents, who were Japanese living in Peru when he was born, remembered to file the appropriate forms, giving him Japanese citizenship.
Posted by: Steve Janke at February 2, 2006 01:50 PM
That was my situation. My parents are Canadian, but I was born in the States. They filled out a form and the first time we crossed the border, I was given a slip of paper that affirmed I was Canadian.
Posted by: Ith at February 2, 2006 02:26 PM
Germany is another case in point: citizenship is by blood, not by birth. So the German-born children of Turkish Gastarbeiter are not German citizens, for example.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 2, 2006 02:51 PM
I am in favour of removing birth-right citizenship altogether. Let the person apply for citizenship when they reach a certain age. No reason for people to automatically be a citizen of a country simply because they were born there. By applying for citizenship the person becomes more attached to the rights and responsibilities as it would be something that is earned and not given.
Posted by: mark at February 2, 2006 02:57 PM
I have to agree, citizenship shouldn't be automatic, just by birth. Everyone should take a citizenship class at school, and then after that, get a citizenship card/passport thingie, (photo ID)I think it would help the electorate be better educated on the value of their participation. Civic elections (as an example) are a joke. 2/3 of the people don't turn out for them anymore. No wonder liberals, communists, and assorted nuts run city halls all over the nation.
Posted by: Curtis at February 2, 2006 03:02 PM
Israel is often referred to as 'racist' and 'apartheid' since it is easier for Jews to receive citizenship than others (who immigrate). I'm pretty sure that anyone born in Israel becomes a citizen though, regardless of religion.
Frankly, Israel's rules seem more fair than Japan's.
Posted by: Jonny_eh at February 2, 2006 03:03 PM
I'm a little surprised that is is not illegal for the head of state of Japan to wed someone who is not Shinto, while it is illegal for the head of state of Canada to wed a Catholic.
Posted by: nittypig at February 2, 2006 03:24 PM
Johnny_eh -
You're not exactly correct. Citizenship is granted at birth but Israelis must serve in the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces.) For many Muslim born Israeli this is a bit to hard to swallow.
http://www.israelexperts.com/visa.html
I'm of the belief that citizenship is earned not a right.
Posted by: matt at February 2, 2006 03:34 PM
Curtis said, "No wonder liberals, communists, and assorted nuts run city halls all over the nation."
No wonder bigot is sometimes used in the same sentence as Canadian.
Posted by: Ron at February 2, 2006 03:41 PM
The only problem with Mark's idea (let the person apply for citizenship when they reach a certain age) is that people can be left stateless.
Suppose such a proposal is implemented in Canada. Parents from some other country that only recognizes citizenship by geography, not by parentage, give birth to a child in Canada. Until that child's application is accepted, that child is stateless. That could make it difficult to leave the country.
Posted by: thickslab at February 2, 2006 03:51 PM
Citizenship should be a birthright by blood instead of geography. A person can not help where s/he is born, but to be denied citizenship because of birth outside the borders is nonsense.
Posted by: AnotherDave at February 2, 2006 03:57 PM
Wrongo Rono:
I was unaware that I said anything bigoted. Should we let the liberals, communists and nut jobs run city hall to keep them out of higher levels of government?
Just common sense. When most of the people don't vote in an election, (in the last civic elections in Alberta, about 2/3 did not) is it a surprise that the people who run, and win these elections have very little in common with most citizens?
Posted by: Curtis at February 2, 2006 04:01 PM
How about a learner's permit for citizenship.
Once you've reached a certain age or time has elapsed the appicant goes to Citizenship College to learn what it means to be a Canadian, writes a test in 1 of the 2 official languages, submits a DNA sample then swears an oath.
Posted by: Ron at February 2, 2006 04:02 PM
Curtis, What's bigoted to me is lumping Liberals in with all the others you mentioned. They are crooks and theives but that doesn't make them nut jobs. BTW I voted Liberal.
You do have a valid point though in 1 way. I know the City council where I live attracts people without real lives such as a 49 year old man that doesn't work and still lives with his mommy. He's not the only one, there are others with similar loser resumes.
Posted by: Ron at February 2, 2006 04:13 PM
"while it is illegal for the head of state of Canada to wed a Catholic."
Huh? Isn't Jean-Daniel Lafond at least nominally Catholic?
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 2, 2006 04:34 PM
You know Ron when a person ( let's say Curtis )writes and uses the small L liberal it doesn't necessarily mean the Liberal party of Canada.
And
I'm sure every one here knows who you voted forever for. What you don't seem to understand is that no one here really gives a shit how or who you voted for.
So I'd like to see you apologize to Curtis for calling him a Canadian Bigot and post something worth chewing on some day.
Fat chance that will ever happen mumbo jumbo.
Honestly
Posted by: banjotom at February 2, 2006 04:47 PM
Dr Dawg:
Jean isn't the head of state of Canada. QE2 is. There is a long time prohibition against being married to a catholic.(like 7 centuries or so now?)
As far as Ron apologizing. I don't expect it. I call him Wrongo Rono, and he hasn't gotten hot headed and demanded an apology. So I wont either.
Ive never known anyone who voted liberal ever. NDP maybe a few people. So I include liberal voters with the minority who've seen Elvis (recently), Big Foot, or the Ogopogo monster.
Posted by: Curtis at February 2, 2006 08:19 PM
Curtis:
"Jean isn't the head of state of Canada. QE2 is."
Sheesh. I stand corrected.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 2, 2006 08:50 PM
IIRC, it's only been since the Meiji restoration that women have been barred from the throne in Japan, so that is a relatively novel law, though OTOH I think there have been maybe 5 (?) female empresses. Should look it up.
For the record, it's only been since the Act of Union in the early 1700's (1702?) that it became illegal for the British head of state to be married to a Catholic. Charles II was married to a Catholic, as was James II - part of what brought about the Act of Union and the penal laws in the first place. So that's about 300 years. I think the last person who had to get the Queen's clearance to marry a Catholic was Prince Michael of Kent, although his sister-in-law the Duchess of Kent later converted to Catholicism, long after her marriage to the Duke.
Posted by: Meg Q at February 3, 2006 12:13 AM
The people that stand out in my mind are the Italians -- who would ever imagine that Italians are not "real" Canadians. But apparantly the homeland is calling, they are reclaiming their racial citizenships, and the CRTC has granted them a TV channel so they can prepare for the upcoming election.
Posted by: Mick at February 3, 2006 01:11 AM
banjotom...Seems like your high A string is a little flat.
No apologies offered or accepted.
Please provide me with a rulebook so I might change my reputation to Righto Rono.
Posted by: Ron at February 3, 2006 10:23 AM
You seem to have forgotten the Indian Act, Angry. We have a massive bureaucratic infrastructure set up to dispense benefits explicitly along racial and blood lines, and this is effectively set in concrete by being written into the Constitution.
It would be nice if we were rid of such racial thinking but we are a long way from that.
Posted by: Trudeaupia at February 3, 2006 10:40 AM
Being right. Is the only rule.
I would like to eliminate Indian Reserves and the Indian act as well. I somehow think that the Indians would cry racism should we try... After all we would be accepting them as lowly Canadian citizens like the rest of us...
As far as native self government. They should be told, that they can have all the government they wish to pay for. I think the idea of self government would loose its appeal if they where going to be the ones paying for it.
Posted by: Curtis at February 3, 2006 03:29 PM
Here's something else that I don't think Canadians appreciate:
Canada helps Malaysians break citizenship laws
The memo entitled Canada Facilitating Criminal Violation of Foreign Laws? - Warning from our Canadian Embassy points to a practice where Canadian consular officials are helping Canadian citizens of Malaysian origin get special facilitation visas to travel and circumvent local citizenship laws.
Malaysia does not recognize dual nationality and it is criminal offence for Malaysians to have multiple passports. Malaysians found holding dual citizenship are automatically stripped of their Malaysian citizenship...
http://tinyurl.com/dlcfa
or this:
Passport babies delivered in B.C. for $22,000
"You are thinking ahead, preparing for your child 20 years later. You are paying $20,000 now. But if you were to send your child overseas to study or to local foreign schools, the cost would be about 10 times greater. You are saving at least 150 million won (C$175,000) for your child." "Wohn Su-hyeon, Coquitlam businessman who runs "birth tours" for pregnant Korean mothers wanting to deliver their babies in the Lower Mainland...
...Like the United States, Canada grants citizenship to anyone born on its soil. Britain and Australia repealed similar laws in the 1980s...
...Choi said the trip was for a "future investment," which will allow her daughter to receive a North American education for less money than if she were a Korean citizen...
http://tinyurl.com/92n32
Posted by: JM at February 4, 2006 12:06 AM
 
|
|
