Passports are Racist
Posted by vincevincevince on August 11, 2009
Although the title may be a little simplistic, I’m going to discuss the difference between the concepts of race and citizenship; specifically with reference to discrimination on those bases.
Let us first quote a couple of dictionary definitions:
Race
The descendants of a common ancestor; a family, tribe, people, or nation, believed or presumed to belong to the same stock; a lineage; a breed
Citizen
1. One who enjoys the freedom and privileges of a city; a freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.
2. An inhabitant of a city; a townsman. Shak.
3. A person, native or naturalized, of either sex, who owes allegiance to a government, and is entitled to reciprocal protection from it.
4. One who is domiciled in a country, and who is a citizen, though neither native nor naturalized, in such a sense that he takes his legal status from such country.
Both terms are applicable to a group of people; citizens or members of a given race. Race is based upon a presumption of some form of genetic similarity; whilst citizenship is a state which depends upon one’s current relationship to a given country or state. From this it might appear that the key difference is that one is a characteristic of a people whilst the other a temporal assignment of chiefly administrative benefit, however I believe that to do so is to misunderstand citizenship.
Passports: An instrument of racism?
When it comes down to it, citizenship is almost always obtained by means of inheritance. The citizenship of one or both parents is inherited by the child, passed down as if it were a part of the DNA – just as is the case with race. Many children born outside of the country of their parents go on to successfully claim citizenship based not upon the country they were born in and live in, but the citizenship of their parents. In just the same way; the children of white parents who are born in Nigeria are still considered white.
Citizenship, if not inherited, may sometimes be gained through a long process of naturalisation. This requires a long period of residence and usually other conditions to be met before an application will be processed. There is rarely an absolute right to citizenship after this period of time; rather it is granted at the pleasure of the awarding state. Thus, naturalisation cannot be considered a route to citizenship but rather a selective privilege.
Now, why do these distinctions matter? Usually, these are just terms which are used to label people; however, they are increasingly used as tools of discrimination. Xenophobia is on the rise in many countries, and even where an awareness of the wrongs of racism has taken root, discrimination on grounds of citizenship or nationality is being progressively strengthened.
Given that citizenship is usually a sign of descent from the country in question, being passed down from generation to generation, is it not almost interchangeable with race? If one limits a certain right to citizens of a given country, it means that the entitlement is just to those who are descendants of that nation (e.g. the same race) and those whom that nation has favoured (selective exemption). Is that not racism by another name, perhaps even worse than racism?
Racism is based upon crude genetic concepts; whereas citizenship can be tampered with by selectively granting it where it seems advantageous. It is difficult for a racist policy to make exemptions (only white people, and non-white people with a certificate of whiteness?), a trait which helps expose the inequality and unfairness of racism. Citizenship is far more cunning a tool because it allows a government to pick and choose, blurring the edges just enough to hide the divisions and discrimination it is perpetrating.
At the bottom of my concern over this issue is a realisation that entitlements which result from birth are fundamentally unfair. Whilst there is a case to be made for entitlements which are earned during one’s lifetime through merit, there is no fairness in picking and choosing between newborn babies.
Why is it that two babies, born at the same hour of the same day, should receive entirely different rights and privileges? One may be destined to a life of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa whilst the other is given the right to live and work in any country of his choice across Europe. I do not believe anyone has the right to tell the first child that because he doesn’t have ‘citizenship’ he cannot make his home and raise a family where it is best for him… it is nothing but disguised racism and xenophobia.
I would love to see an end to discrimination on the basis of citizenship; however before that can happen more people need to realise that it is in fact a wrong that needs to be corrected.
No related posts.
Comments
4 Responses to “Passports are Racist”Leave a comment, and if you'd like your own picture to show up next to your comments, go get a gravatar!
I am not sure I follow you. Can you b more clear? You are saying that one race is also one same citizneship??
Hi James; in a way… I am trying to show that the principles of labelling people by citizenship are little different (in practical terms) than labelling them by race. If you see my logic there, then the next part is to ask why discriminating by citizenship is somehow fine but discriminating by race is considered a great social evil.
I’m also a little mystified. If I’m born in the U.S. (which I was), but I’m not automatically granted the same citizenship as my parents (also born in the U.S), on what basis then can I be granted citizenship here or anywhere else?
If you’re saying life is unfair, I agree with you, but I don’t believe human beings have the ability to dispense fairness across a planetary population. As Jesus said, “the poor will be with you always”, at least until he returns.
James, you are thinking about how you might acquire citizenship without first asking whether it should exist at all. To have certain laws, rights, responsibilities and privileges which apply to *residents* makes sense, but to use the rather arbitrary (and as I have discussed, basically race-based) concept of citizenship doesn’t. What would happen if we dropped the concept of citizenship altogether? Right to reside, rather than being an inherited right, would be a personal question: do you agree to live under the laws of this state? If you agree, then you should have just as much right to live in the state as as anyone else whether their great grandparent lived there or not.