Let’s ask a searching question about EU membership by comparing two past applicants. One of them was accepted, the other was not.

	Applicant A	Applicant B
Distance to Maastricht treaty member	19km	210km
Inflation rate	2.32%	7.71%
Unemployment rate	2.1%	3.6%
Median age	24.7	37.3
Population density	71	93.1
Free market reform since	1976	1989
Democracy since	1956	1989
Religious freedom since	1912	1960
Colour of people	???	???

Which would you have chosen, given those statistics? Naturally, B, the one with rampant inflation, an aging population, high unemployment, relative overcrowding and which is a long way from any core EU country?

Foreground: Spain (EU); Background: Morocco (denied membership)

What does that really mean? To me, that is pure racial discrimination. Remember that Turkey and large parts of southern Spain have far closer cultural ties with Morocco than they have with Germany.

Is there a real reason other than disguised racism for denying Morocco entry whilst allowing Serbia, Romania and Turkey?

Could it really be that the racist leaders of EU member states are unwilling to allow Moroccans to benefit from the EU purely because they are not white? Could the EU which is happy to admit people from so many states really not want to allow this country with mostly non-white people in it to gain the freedom to live, move and work in EU member states?

Do you agree and feel that the EU is institutionally racist? Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Comments particularly welcome!

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.