Thank you for a thought provoking article.

One thing that was not mentioned is dual citizenship. It seems to be that more and more countries are recognizing dual citizenship.

As an American going through the immigration process to Canada right now, I am extremely grateful for this, and if I couldn't get dual citizenship, I don't know if I would try to become a citizen here (even thoush it seems like I will be living here for a long, long time).

That being said, how many of the problems that the authors mention would simply disappear if Canada simply refused to acknowledge dual citizenships? How many of those Lebanese-Canadians would give up being Canadian? Or being Lebanese?

Is it really possible to be a truly dual citizen, where you have an equal sense of honor and respect for each country you are a citizen of? From my point of view, I don't think so (but that doesn't mean that I want to give up my dual citizenship).

Canada might pass a law prohibiting dual citizenship, and it might make some narrow-minded Canadian nationalists feel good, but it wouldn't actually mean that much in practice. Under international law, the other country would have no obligation to respect any Canadian laws. For example, someone born elsewhere may be considered a national of that country when s/he steps into its borders, regardless of his/her status in Canada, or even regardless of whether s/he has renounced the other country's citizenship. It's impossible to ban dual citizenship, especially now, when people are so mobile. Canada has taken a very forward-looking step in allowing it.

Nightbloom,

You missed the point of the article in my opinion. The authors were positing a double-standard that seemingly exists wrt. the concept of Canadian Citizenship: that those of dual-ethnicity & citizenship, eg. Lebanese-Canadians, were having their "Canadian-ness" challenged, while those like John Kenneth Galbraith, for example, are stuck with putative Canadian-ness even though he renounced his Canadian citizenship.

What the authors hint at, in a veiled way, but don't state outright, is that there are those who believe the concept of Canadian-ness is based on race/ethnicity. Those who are of dual-ethnicity tend to have their Canadian credentials challenged more than other ex-pat Canadians.

I would tend to agree with this statement. No offense to Werdnagreb in the above post, but being American-Canadian is not really a dual-ethnicity type of situation: we speak the same language, both eat hamburgers and watch the same TV, blah-blah-blah - and if caucasian - look the same.

I believe we need to look at immigration using a different lens - the former model is out of date - so in this sense I would agree with Nightbloom, that many things have changed. The old concept of the immigrant, the earnest family disembarking off a boat to work in construction and wanting to be Canadian to obtain a better life for themselves and their children - this is becoming an increasingly smaller archtype. Rather, due to the labour requirements of our country, our prioritization, etc. - we are seeking well-educated, English/French-speaking immigrant who are investors, software engineers, etc.

These new immigrants do not come to Canada for a better life for themselves necessarily - many leave good, high-paying jobs in their home countries - they still immigrate for their children, but now it's mainly so their kids can learn English, attend good schools - and so the parents can enjoy good quality of life (cheap golf, that is) in a healthy and comfortable environment.

When my parents immigrated to Canada - Canada was superior to their home country economically, politically and socially, so they "became" Canadian. This is now no longer the case really - their old country is now very developed and offers more in the way of economic opportunities than Canada. Recent immigrants to Canada from this country don't feel any inferiority now as they arrive with bucketloads of cash, educations and other goodies.

What most people don't realize is that there is a distinct power equation in the old concept of immigration: the immigrant came to the adopted country and rejected his/her old country in order to join the new country. And what would make someone want to give-up their nationality to assume a new one? I mean, imagine if you as an adult had to immigrate to another country with a compeltely foreign culture and language - it's not natural and it doesn't come easy. Something pretty important would have to drive you to do this - to reject your former country and embrace a new one.

With the new immigrant in the post dual-citizenship world - immigration becomes less soul-wrenching and more of a convenience. Well, I don't have to give-up my old nationality, so there's less risk, less change, less downside - only upside. What the heck, let's do it - it wouldn't hurt. So, with the new immigrant, there's no more inferiority to drive the embracing of the new country, nor is there anymore legal obligation or sense of finality.

This is neither good nor bad - just different. Immigration is less about the huddled masses and more about attracting the right human capital. In this context then, it's old-think to continue to insist on Canadian-ness or Canadian credentials as the authors call it above as the determinant to the provision of services. Especially if it's based on ethnicity.

Since Granatstein decried "anti-americanism" on the Bill Good show a few days ago, I would think carefully about any of his opinions.

My wife is Malaysian and can not become a Canadian Citizen without giving up her Malaysian citizenship. She did give up a good job there, a much higher lifestyle to marry me. But she still has emotional and family attachments with her homeland. If she could she would take Canadian Citizenship also, but will have to remain content with PR status which means she will likely never be able to apply for a government job.

One of the realities of dual citizenship is that you are subject to the laws of both countries. Generally the birth country will consider you their citizen and may ignore your other citizenship and may still act the same even if you gave up the citizenship and came back as a visitor.

I have wondered if I could be held to Sharia law in Malaysia for my actions here as I had to covert to Islam over there to marry my wife. (repeat after me, there is no compulsion in Islam, unless of course you try to renounce it, whereupon we will either beat you and/or kill you)

If Canada wants to attract people, they will need to offer dual citizenship, already we are getting a bad rep for the way we treat people with degrees. I also think it’s high time we allowed Landed Immigrants into the military.

Nana, so pls clarify - does this mean that you believe anti-americanism is okay?

Colin - I'm confused. I understood that Canada already allows Dual Citizenship(since the Citizenship Act of 1977). Is it not at Malaysia that you should be pointing the finger for not allowing dual citizenship? Canada is quite advanced in this regard.

I consider "anti-Americanism" to be an absolutely BS, obscurantist term, and anybody who uses it does so in order to either provoke a guilty or confused reaction in the person who is accused of it or as a conversation stopper when one is offering genuine criticism of the actions of the US government. It is very much kin to the accusation of anti-Semitism levelled at anyone who criticises Israel.

Incredulous,

Very good points, I really like the distinction you make. But Granatstein argues that citizenship is not just about rights and conveniences, but about obligations as well. In the old model the obligations were clear: a responsibility to your community, e.g. by defending it in times of conflict, or by devoting most of your life and interests to it, at the exclusion of other communities. What are the obligations of citizenship in this new "human capital" model you suggest? Are there any?

Colin
Why didn't you get married in Canada? Seems to me it would have solved all your problems and avoided the difficulty of your obviously insincere 'conversion'.

Granatstein is a rude man and a phony as an intellectual. Instead of making a case for his point of view and arguing it rationally, he stoops - at the slightest hint of disagreement or qualification by an interlocutor - to dismissive name-calling.

An awful lot like Shannon Rupp in these pages - and in the Globe and Mail and elsewhere.

Actually we did also get married in Canada so my family could also take part.

Malaysia would not consider a secular Canadian marriage as valid as my wife is Muslim and subject to Sharia law. Therefore if found together in “Close proximity” she could be charged as could I (this stuff happens regularly over there) any children we had could be seized by the state and turned over to foster parents.

Malaysia requires that a person converting to Islam take a 10 week course before being accepted, we did mine according to the Koran. Due to this, we had to get a mosque in Thailand to do up the marriage certificate at a cost of 1500 Ringit. (I hope none that money was used to promote their terrorist activities there) Since I had refused to change my name, they added “Abdullah” (son of god) , father unknown is apparently the translation.

I am the first to admit that my conversion is insincere, religion is a pain in the butt. But I also realize that Malaysia considers me a Muslim and when I am there I am subject to Sharia law, and I do take it seriously as I don’t wish to be caned. My wife would have married me regardless, but my not converting would have likely have cost her most of her family and the ability to visit Malaysia. Despite my contempt of religion, I was about to ask my wife to give up that much. The side benefit is it gives me a chance to wander about in the religion and try to understand some of the motivators.

Incredulous
I was arguing that if we wish to attract the better educated immigrants, then we must continue to offer dual citizenship.

Vancouverite - this is a great question and the answer is "I don't know"

But as many people can attest, me not knowing rarely stops me from pontificating/speculating -grin- so here goes:

Let's say this human capital model of immigration becomes the dominant model in the developed world. I see two scenarios: a 2-track immigration policy; or a converged model of immigration meshing traditional immigration, eg. melting pot vs. human capital model.

2 tracks: one is the straight-up "Become Canadian" immigrant program that becomes more stringent in its requirements, eg. required residency requirement beyond the current requirements before and after becoming a citizen, greater language proficiency, and other measures. These people become Canadian - and more of the Canadian-ness quotient is baked into this class.

The second track is for human capital-type immigrants who move to Canada primarily for lifestyle, economic reasons or whatever. Likely reduced privileges, eg. Canadian BUT different color passport, same or reduced residency requirements, and access to fewer "Canadian" services - or services tied to specific metrics.

Converged - becoming a Canadian citizen requires less of the Canadian-ness quotient - basically what is happening now.

Given the innate resistance of Canadians to anything 2-track, I think that we'll simply go to the converged model where we will continually tweak the existing immigration policies until the Canadian-ness quotient gets dialled-down(with the exception of Quebec maybe). The USA will likely implement a 2-track system so they don't become the United States of Mexico - though I think that would be way cool.

So is this bad? I don't know - being an immigrant myself(my parents moved to Canada when I was a 1 yr-old) I have no problem with my own national loyalties - I'm Canadian and can hold my own in any Maple-Lead-Cum-Turing-Test.

One of things about immigration that escapes many people is that it's all about the children. While many first-generation immigrants prosper and acclimatize to being Canadian eh, it's the next generation that really begins to become Canadian. This is why we have all these charming indy movies about culture clashes between 1st generation and 2nd generation immigrants.

It's simply a fact that the longer someone lives in a country the more like the majority of that country s/he becomes. Of course, it isn't always smooth - witness what's happening in England, France of Spain, where some children of immigrants who grew-up in these countries turn-against them. A result of a non-welcoming society? Seductive terrorists preying on susceptible and troubled individuals playing the racism card? All of the above?

Some important questions not addressed in the article:

What is Canadian? I'm born here, first generation, and lived here for 50 years and still have not heard a real good definition.

In an increasingly global world is nationality itself necessary?

And the biggest one: as development pressure destroys more and more of the natural Canada that Canadians supposedly hold so dear, why attempt to attract more people in the first place?

Bit of a dilemma for you then Colin. Seems to me I know a lot of Christians and Buddhists who live in Malaysia. How do they manage?

I'm not sure I have an answer but I still suspect there are reform movements in Islam that are working on the problem of mixed marriages - of which, for example, there are many in Israel.

Clearly a secular state is preferable - however, one can't exactly say that obtains in Israel either. That is as much a problem, vis a vis a decent settlement for all as any of the religious extremism in Iran or Syria.

I still think you are far too sanguine about Israel and western interference as main causes of the problem. You can do a lot (of good/or bad) with $6 billion a year you know.

What would have happened if you'd just married here, your wife had become a Canadian citizen and then went back to Malaysia to visit on a Canadian passport?

Alcibiades

The Buddhists and Chinese are subject to the secular laws of the country not to sharia law (yet) there is a case in front of the supreme court there of a Muslim who renounced Islam for Christianity, that is challenging the power of the Shaira courts, the supreme court has opted out before, saying it is a matter for the sharia courts, ignoring the apparent conflict between the secular state and the Islamic state. Basically they are playing a balancing game, which this case could cause great turmoil. Radical Islam has seeped into Mayalsia in the last 20 years, and looking at pictures of Malay women and men from that time you will see most wearing a sarong with bared shoulders and hair, now almost all of them wear the hajib to prevent harassment from the religious police.

It is my understanding that even if she became a Canadian citizen, she would still be considered a Muslim and subject to sharia law and that our marriage would not be accepted, rather than being sent to prison, as a Canadian citizen she would like be expelled and barred from returning, which would be a harsh sentence.

The real crisis facing Islam is it’s interference in the daily affairs of people, Islam like Christianity before it, will have to make the transition to a spiritual religion if there is to be peace. Sharia law breeds power and has stifled the development of the Islamic world.

Found it, it sounds simple enough, but the case has major implications if she wins.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/8/24/courts/15229560&sec=courts

another case

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/8/31/courts/15292089&sec=courts

Turns out the Tories are going ahead with a review of dual citizenship:

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=48fa4d2f-c926-4763-a2a3-df325d1c0fe3