Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

February 3rd, 2010

Tags

, ,

Comments

22 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Citizenship: Drawing a Line

France, unlike other European countries, seems to be willing to draw clear lines regarding what citizenship and French values mean, and to deny it without concern over leftist or politically correct criticism. A recent case:

The French government has refused to grant citizenship to a foreign national on the grounds that he forced his wife to wear the full Islamic veil. The man, whose current nationality was not given, needed citizenship to settle in the country with his French wife.

But Immigration Minister Eric Besson said this was being refused because he was depriving his wife of the liberty to come and go with her face uncovered. Last week, a parliamentary committee proposed a partial ban on full veils. It also recommended that anyone showing visible signs of “radical religious practice” be refused residence permits and citizenship.

I salute France in standing up for its values. No foreigner has a right to citizenship or even residence and twisted ideas of about fairness, political correctness and tolerance have led countries to act against their own interest by allowing in those who do not share even the most fundamental values of the land. For particularly sick examples see the Netherlands and Great Britain.

As immigration from the developing countries to industrialized countries continues to grow, and communication and transportation technology increases the movement of people across national borders, the question of the value and meaning of citizenship is something that must be raised again. If citizenship boils down to birth location or having the correct paperwork, then it is meaningless. Readers, what does citizenship mean today, particularly in a time of multiple loyalties?

Comments to this entry

spandrell
February 3, 2010
7:41 pm
Nice, attack them from their women. If Islamic women start uncovering their faces and wearing short skirts, Islam is doomed.
Admiral
February 4, 2010
1:16 am
I'm not sure this is a well-founded case. The woman chose to marry the man. She is French, is she not? She chose to wear the full veil. What is the difference between her doing so in the house, which wouldn't be banned presumably, and outside? This is a shameful restriction.

I dislike the practice based on taste, but so long as people enter of their own volition into relationships that seemingly degrade them, it's not really the state's business unless some kind of right is being violated. She has the right to take off the veil, to divorce, etc. She simply chooses not to do so.

Lands where coercion reigns on the practice are a different matter.
Bob Harrison
February 4, 2010
3:45 am
There is an inherent conflict between strict Islam and liberal ideals regarding women's rights and sexual freedom. It seems like the Europeans have been pretending this not to be the case and are finding that it is no longer possible to do so.
I certainly hope that liberal ideals win out.
lirelou
February 4, 2010
4:00 am
I have to agree with Admiral on this. This was not in a classroom, where French law has forbid the display of religious symbols since Jules Ferry's time. I see no difference in this than in banning yarmulke's in public, or LDS members from wearing their 'garments'.
spandrell
February 4, 2010
4:40 am
Yeah its not the state business if half the population of Paris ends up wearing burkas.
Long-live freedom. sigh
SEEROV
February 4, 2010
4:55 am
The question you ask regarding citizenship will be the defining question/issue of this century.
PsycloneJack
February 4, 2010
12:19 pm
I have to disagree with Admiral on this. The article says that the man "forced" his wife (and let me be punctilious here: there's nothing on the wife's religion). I have heard some interesting stories on such mixed relationships: how the husband's family treated the European wife and along that I assume there can be several types of forcing in a marriage but these are not the point. The point is the import of non-European values that goes _against_ freedom: like killing your daughter who dishonors your family in the eye of Islamic traditions. How do you ban one tradition and allow the other? How do you decide what is acceptable? And how do you explain the difference to a man who most probably won't - because don't want to - understand your values?
Chirol
February 4, 2010
12:21 pm
Admiral & Lirelou: I can see your point and agree for the most part. The reason I draw the line is because we are talking about a foreigner who has no right to be in France. Granted, the fact that he married a French citizen (although the article doesn't mention if she is really French, or an immigrant) does complicate the case since that normaly grants an automatic right to be there.

However, the issue here is not about clothing at all, but instead whether states should begin to screen their immigrants based on shared values with their destination country. Europe is full of examples of the peril of allowing anyone in, including those who dont respect local laws, values and culture and dont tolerate others. I strongly believe Western countries, particularly Europe and less so the US, should begin screening immigrants in such a way. After all, this is our country and nobody else has a right to come, particularly people who want to move here to take advantage of the advances of our culture and society and yet criticize and complain abotu it the entire time (see Muslim immigrants in Europe).
Younghusband
February 4, 2010
1:41 pm
Remember this burqa case in France from two years ago?
Master Cook
February 4, 2010
5:02 pm
Do people have a right to choose who they want to marry, assuming their partner agrees?

Or should the government have some ability to keep their, um, citizens from marrying if they think it creates some "peril" for the state?

If you believe the first statement, as most people do, if someone in a country chooses to marry the foreigner, yes, you have to let the foreigner in even if he doesn't "respect local laws, values and culture and dont tolerate others". Its perfectly possible, after all, that the native born citizen may decide that she doesn't "respect local laws, values and culture and dont tolerate others" and want to wear the burka (as a side note, don't underestimate the long term attraction of Islam to people born in western countries who you think would be immune it it, particularly if they get alienated from their own society. Its happened before).

Now you don't have to give the husband citizenship, and in most cases I'm aware of becoming a citizen is much harder than getting a residence permit and does involve some screening that the new citizen understands, and agrees with, the values of his or her new country. New American citizens have to demonstrate a much greater knowledge of American history and American government institutions than do native born Americans.

But residents? Look, companies may sponsor for residence a foreigner just the company wants to hire him. No values are involved at all.
Bishop Smith
February 4, 2010
6:06 pm
As somoeone who, for my sins, has worked for the UK immigration authorities for several years, I have a fair to middling understanding of the European Convention of Human Rights. While refusing citizenship is one thing, any decision to deny this man residence in France with his French wife, on the basis of a dislike of the niqab, is unlikely to stand up at the European Court.

If this practice becomes routine, I would not doubt that a test case will end up there fairly swiftly. I really don't think the liberal justices of strasbourg will find such a decision to be "in pursuit of a legitimate aim", and would likely quash it as an unlawful breach of their Article 8 rights to family and private life.

An argument could certianly be made for the protection of the 'europeaness' of French society being a legitimate aim in itself, and I welcome the French governments decision to test the water on this. I hope they succeed, as it may give my own employers courage to follow a similar path. We are a very tolerant society on the whole, certainly more so than France (where I lived for two years, including 6 months in the Islamic metropolis of Marseille), and I just can't see this ever happening here.

But the main reason why Britian is not more stringent in immigration policy (and there are many who would suggest we already go too far), despite a general public desire for us to be so, is because we work within the confines of the ECHR. France seems far more ready to challenge the boundaries of the convention than HMG, and far more ready to ignore it when it suits them!

If the in-coming Tory government are going to be as tough on immigration as they would like the electorate to think, then they are going to need to pull out of the ECHR. I'll believe that when I see it.
Bishop Smith
February 4, 2010
6:17 pm
"or LDS members from wearing their 'garments'. "

Slight difference in that temple garments are purposefully kept out of sight!
Aar0n
February 4, 2010
9:54 pm
It seems difficult to me to some insist that citizenship is linked to shared values. What happens to the native born who do not share those values--should they have their citizenship revoked? As I presume that is not the author's intention, then it appears that citizenship in fact stills boils down primarily to "birth location," and is thus "meaningless."

To some extent, voluntary citizenship (and often even permanent residence) already discriminates based on values, usually by delineating a list of past crimes that render somehow unacceptable for immigration purposes. U.S. immigration law, in fact, specifically bans people who have committed crimes of "moral terpitude," and have left it to the courts (immigration and federal) to sort out the details of what that means.

Perhaps the lesson to take is that citizenship, in fact, should become meaningless--that the accidents of one's birth should not be the primary determining factor of what government one should be subject to. That's a bit left-wing, though.
Guest469
February 4, 2010
10:50 pm
Are Liberal values universal?
Do sovereign nations have a right to assert their own values?
Because if anyone cares to re-read Chirol's last 2 paragraphs from the position of a Chinese/Iranian/Saudi/Sudanese leader, they might conclude that Chirol is a great fan of theirs or a flaming hypocrite.
Chirol
February 4, 2010
11:37 pm
Aaron: You do make good points. I'd agree there are people who are born in country X to parents from there that may not share the same values as others, but I'd imagine that you and I are talking about different levels,w ith my intention being deeper commonly held values that go unquestioned among most everyone and more 'superficial' values. So while many people disagree on politics, (nearly) everyone agrees democracy is the best form of government, everyone should have equal rights, capitalism (some version) is the best form of economics etc. We disagree on variations yes, but not the principles. The same cannot be said of immigrants.

And even with that point in mind, since those in question are foreigners, they still have no right to be admitted, even if a small % of the country may not believe in mainstream values, the gov of country X still has an interest in promoting those.

Bishop Smith: I wonder why Britain was dumb enough to join the ECHR. Allowing radicals in another country to decide your policy is something peoples and governments fought for centuries to prevent and in fact still do. As a British citizen, I'd be outraged. The UK needs to tell the ECHR where they can put their rules. But then again, I'd advise them to withdraw from the EU anyway.
UNRR
February 5, 2010
11:30 am
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 2/5/2010, at The Unreligious Right
Bishop Smith
February 5, 2010
12:29 pm
"As a British citizen, I'd be outraged. The UK needs to tell the ECHR where they can put their rules."

You won't find me disagreeing.
tdaxp
February 5, 2010
3:03 pm
"There is an inherent conflict between strict Islam and liberal ideals regarding women's rights and sexual freedom."

True, only if you mean political islam and personal liberalism.

Political liberty, of course, allows persons to wear what they wish.
Links from the week « The Complete Body
February 6, 2010
4:35 pm
[...] Chirol of ComingAnarchy.com talks about France taking a stand to preserve its culture [...]
An Island Apart « Automatic Ballpoint
February 7, 2010
1:17 am
[...] an anti-immigrant backlash. But in reality, it’s much more about preserving and proclaiming their own values. A French parliamentary report declared that “the wearing of the full veil is a challenge to [...]
Aris Katsaris
February 8, 2010
11:29 am
"What happens to the native born who do not share those values--should they have their citizenship revoked? "

No.

There's a vast qualitative difference between denying citizenship to someone who doesn't have one, and revoking the citizenship of someone who has it. Same as there's a difference between me refusing to give you money on the one hand, and me stealing your own money on the other. I can refuse to give you something you don't own -- I can't however decide to take away what is already yours.

The former situation is the the people participating in a democracy having a right to decide which outsiders get to join them in such participation. Without such power to decide their democracy is meaningless, because any other nation would be able to send a few million outiders to affect their decision making process.

To however exclude already participating members means to limit the ways that the participating members can express their opinions -- and that would again make democracy meaningless.

The French people, through their democratically elected government, decided they didn't want foreigner phallocratic fascists to take part in their democracy -- that's perfectly within the rights of the French people.
Consul-At-Arms
February 22, 2010
7:16 pm
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms2.blogspot.com/2010/02/re-citizenship-drawing-line.html