آیا داشتن تابعیت مضاعف حق تمام شهروندان است؟ رویکردهای عملی و انتقادی آن.

In the last few years, there has been a great deal of discussion about the significance of the rise in “dual nationality” or “dual citizenship” in the countries of immigration. There is a myriad of items discussed in order to explain its various dimensions in journals of law and in the world of political philosophy and political science.

Such a newfound phenomenon has captured public and academic attention, when North America and Western Europe had faced refugees. It seems clearly that dual citizenship became an issue in politics and journalistic discussion in the United States as well. It occurred particularly when Mexico recognized as the main source of the largest number of legal and illegal immigrants, caused a public angst in the United States.

In some legal and political systems like Germany, it is found by researchers that the issue of dual nationality has become a major controversy. Vividly, Germany has been faced with an intractable assault of large numbers of immigrant workers and their families aspiring the better life. They came particularly from Turkey, while they were looking for permanent residents, but not citizens. Germany did not allow them to define their status under the system of dual citizenship. They had to choose their origin nationality – Turkey or Germany. The majority of them gave up their Turkish nationality. Hence, it was nonsense to preserve their citizenship rights under Turkish legal system. Some European countries like Netherlands obeys Germany to behave immigrants. On the other hand, in yet other countries dual nationality was no issue at all, even though the immigrant populations were dual nationals, in the United Kingdom and Canada, for example.

The acceptance of immigrants as new members of the host society has changed the entire meaning and understanding of national identity increasingly. It also causes to judge a major concern about the integration of immigrants into the host society and polity to settle different discussion debated in international law. The symbols of this critical issue are observed in the United States, for example, where the debate over dual citizenship was marked by some opposed points of view about citizenship, nationality, national loyalty, and national identity. These points have no any practical impact on the successful integration of immigrants counted in different glories and various achievements in the American society and politics.

Conversely, European countries had become hosts to large numbers of immigrants from former colonial possessions. They have prepared some infrastructures for guest workers and their children. All these countries were under the influence of Western liberal and humanitarian values increasingly demanded and required equal rights for all. Meanwhile, it is likely to be criticized by academic and social and political parties, if so-called “foreigners” are staying permanently without fully integrated as citizens of a common nation. In this situation, they are not considered as dual citizens threatening common understandings of national integrity and loyalty. Therefore, lawyers and legal academics are deeply and controversially conflicted about how it is possible to fill the legal gap observing in the particular salient of national loyalty among hosts societies and either immigrants or other kinds of foreigners, if they are forced to accept dual identity. Therefore, they have chosen much more comfortable approach to make a balance between two parts. Hence, the European governors prefer to strengthen the barriers about crossing their national borders and the penalties of the violence of related regulations, rather than the increasing rate of non-citizen immigrants who live permanently. This approach has not been accepted by Commonwealth system managing internationally by the Great Britain.

Notions mentioned above design a legal structure about gaining citizenship and accepting or rejecting dual identity. The inevitable consequence of the increase in immigration in the postwar world, as a result, faces us the interaction of the principal means of gaining citizenship: birth on the soil, birth to parents who are the citizens of a nation and naturalization in a country of immigration. Basically, immigration to a country which grants automatic citizenship on the basis of birth on its soil means that children of immigrants are at birth the citizens of two countries and depending on the laws of the two countries. Of course, naturalization in a country that permits dual nationality means that the naturalized citizen also holds two citizenships. Other variations, such as birth to parents of two different nationalities, can further complicate matters, giving the child of such parents more than two potential nationalities. In sum, the policies approved by states supporting seriously by international organization focus on finding the practical and effective solution on dual identity or citizenship.