|
|
|
|
|
|
Nationality irrationality and the Swiss referendum A referendum in Switzerland has upheld the country's policy of keeping Swiss citizenship élitist. Héctor Abad Faciolince reflects on some of the prejudices underlying the assignment of nationality As no one chooses where to be born, one’s birthplace is a pure accident and therefore neither a fault nor a merit. In this sense one’s nationality ought to have no importance, since the soil does not imprint one’s character. Just as astrology is an idiocy (or, as bad, a society game) supposedly based on serious methods of proof, rather like a sort of “geology” which determines who we “are” according to where we entered the world, it has very little real basis. However,
a convention of the most civilised countries consists in conferring nationality
in accordance with the ius soli, or “law of the soil”. If you are
born within the territory of country X, then you have the right to nationality
X. Why? Because it is a convenient, demonstrable criterion. If someone first
sees light in Cochinchina, then he “is” from Cochinchina. The criterion does
not hold in all countries of the world. Those countries which have a typically
racial or religious concept of nationality, grant it solely to the children of
full nationals. This is the case, for example, in Holland, since if a child with
Indonesian parents is born in Holland, he is not Dutch. Or again, in Israel
where discrimination is religious, if your mother is Jewish, you automatically
have the right to be an Israeli. But if, as happened in the case of a Catholic
monk, you convert to another religion, you no longer have the right to be an
Israeli even though your mother is Jewish. The case of Switzerland is even more dramatic. It is not sufficient to have three generations of life, residence and work in this country in order to cleanse yourself of your racial origins. If your “blood” is not Swiss, you are not Swiss. This has just been confirmed by the Swiss in a referendum with an ample majority. “Jeunes étrangers”, as they call them, and “second” and “third” generation “young foreigners” do not automatically receive Swiss nationality. If a Turkish family emigrated to Switzerland in 1910, had a child there in 1920 who now lives and works there as an 80-year-old Turk, the children of this Turk who was born in Switzerland are not automatically Swiss. It would be more or less like trying to deny nationality to former Colombian president Julio César Turbay Ayala here in Colombia. Until
not long ago countries discriminated among people at the moment of their birth
according to the nobility or villainy of their parents or ancestors. If someone
happened to be the descendant of noble ancestors, then he was noble (without
having to show any nobility of character). And if he had the misfortune to be
the son of villains, then for his entire life he was a villain (however
illustrious his intellect or valour may have been). This discrimination has
disappeared in almost all civilised countries. However, almost all countries
feel nationality to be a sign of ancestry. Or as in the case of Colombia and
other pariah countries, nationality may even be seen by others (and also by
ourselves) as a mark of villainy, lowliness and even delinquency. The
Swiss see the fact of being Swiss as a merit, hard though it is to understand
what merits a newborn child has accomplished in order to deserve a birth
privilege or stigma. It would be interesting to know what they do with
foundlings. Do they get classified as Swiss or non-Swiss according to the colour
of their skin or following a DNA test, since in the case of foundlings it is
impossible to establish their parents’ ancestry? The winners of the referendum
in the Alpine country had a poster showing black and yellow claws trying to
clutch a red Swiss passport with its white cross. They even had a slogan:
“Swiss citizenship has to be merited”. Suppose that were the case. No one,
then, should be granted Swiss citizenship before the age of twenty so that it
could be judged whether someone deserved it or not. And it should also be
possible to revoke it at any age. In
the present world some of the most serious human rights violations are committed
with regard to nationality. Terrible discriminations are committed on the basis
of a passport. That is why may Colombian women in their sixth or seventh month
of pregnancy go off to Miami to give birth. When their child is born, instead of
calling him Pablo they call him Paul and wrap him in the stars and stripes flag.
Filled with pride they send photos by e-mail. And ridiculous though it may seem,
it all makes sense. At least they are sure that Paul will never be sent to
Guantanamo in order not to be judged. Perhaps for this reason there is a
political movement in the United States that wants to abolish the ius soli,
or right to nationality by birth. And
so at least in this way, on entering the United States Paul will be re-labelled
a delinquent with frontal and profile photographs and fingerprints. This
humiliation is not imposed on all nationalities when one enters the United
States. Let’s say it is only imposed on villains, that is to say on whoever
had the misfortune to be born under an unlucky star (or on unlucky soil) in poor
countries in a world which believes in nobility of soil. But there is one poor,
third-world country which has had the valour and elegance to return the favour.
When you reach Brazil, there is a big sign in large letters. It says: “US
citizens". And they and only they are obliged to have their photos taken and
leave their fingerprints on entering Brazilian territory. In this case I think
that Paul and the rest of them deserve it.
|
