Home  Editorials Dual Patriotism
|
Friday, 11 July 2008 |
Last week’s celebration of the USA’s 232nd year of independence, and the pending independent anniversaries of several Caribbean nations like Jamaica and Trinidad, give rise to the subject of patriotism.
On July 4th, the evidence of America’s patriotism is everywhere in red, white and blue garlands, flags flying from residences, and, of course, fireworks exploding in resplendent shapes and colors. Plus, in this election year, the subject of patriotism got added attention as the presidential candidates gave account of their own patriotism.
Patriotism should be interpreted not merely as pride in one’s country of birth, or one’s adopted country, but the commitment to serve in one’s birth and/or adopted country. However, for migrants like those from the Caribbean, a unique situation exists, because many have ‘dual patriotism’, being patriotic to the adopted country – the U.S. - and the respective county of birth.
This ‘dual patriotism’ has become something of a dilemma for migrants from the Caribbean, particularly those who have become citizens of the U.S. while retaining the citizenship of their country of birth, and are in that now beleaguered category having “Dual Citizenship.”
The majority of the millions of Caribbean nationals who migrated to the U.S. did so not because they were unpatriotic to their birth countries, but out of necessity, based on economics, – seeking higher standards of living; security – fleeing oppressive governments or escalated criminal activity; education – seeking higher levels of education. Equally, the majority of these migrants did not come to the U.S. with the intention of disowning their native country, although some became U.S. citizens to get better chances for growth and the enjoyment of certain benefits.
However, becoming citizens does not make a Caribbean migrant any less a patriot to his own country, despite pledging allegiance to the American constitution and flag.
One thing is certain, Caribbean migrants are not asked to renounce the constitution or the flag of their home country when they swear in.
In fact, the American constitution allows naturalized American citizens, to run for political office at the local, state, and national level. Several migrants have become city and county commissioners, state governors and members of the U.S. Congress. Currently, migrants cannot run for the presidency of the U.S, but this could change in the future. The fact is that the American government offers opportunity for people with dual citizenship to serve this country.
However, dual citizenship becomes a problem when a Caribbean migrant returns home and tries to serve his country in a political capacity. Many migrants still want to serve their country so they help by remitting funds; assisting in the development of education and health facilities, make attempts to alleviate poverty, etc. But, many are interested in the political process in their home country, while they are citizens of other countries. Some seek the right to vote in regional elections and others want to seek political office.
In Jamaica, individuals who hold dual citizenships are not allowed to hold political office, because of the constitutional stipulations. This has resulted in a strong debate among Caribbean nationals overseas and in the Caribbean. Those supporting this constitutional barrier claim that those who left their country and obtained citizenship elsewhere should not be involved in the political process of the home country.
Others argue that like Americans who live overseas and participate in America’s political process, Caribbean expatriates should pay taxes to their respective Caribbean home country if they want to have a say in the elections.
One could say that similarly to how the Caribbean governments seek to correct the drain of skilled and experienced personnel from the region by offering incentives for them to return, they could amend the laws to have individuals who can make a meaningful contribution to the region’s governance return and hold political office.
Some argue, however, that if a Caribbean national is really patriotic to his home country, he should have no problem renouncing his foreign citizenship to serve his country of birth. Indeed, this would be a true test of patriotism and would indicate the depth of patriotism to America, for instance, and one’s own country.
Although a solution to this problem is not easy, the fact remains that the world has become a global community, with economics and people penetrating international borders. When Caribbean nationals leave the Caribbean they hardly ever denounce their birth country, despite pledging allegiance to another. What exists is a conflict between opportunism and patriotism; therefore should nationals from one country be barred from being involved directly in the political process of their own country if they swear allegiance to another? Probably the problem would be resolved altogether if the global practice calls for anyone swearing allegiance to another country to automatically renounce his country of birth. That sounds harsh, but it would seriously be the deciding factor between opportunism and patriotism.
|
|
|
|
