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
Admiral
February 4, 2010
1:16 am
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
I certainly hope that liberal ideals win out.
lirelou
February 4, 2010
4:00 am
spandrell
February 4, 2010
4:40 am
Long-live freedom. sigh
SEEROV
February 4, 2010
4:55 am
PsycloneJack
February 4, 2010
12:19 pm
Chirol
February 4, 2010
12:21 pm
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
Master Cook
February 4, 2010
5:02 pm
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
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
Slight difference in that temple garments are purposefully kept out of sight!
Aar0n
February 4, 2010
9:54 pm
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
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
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
Bishop Smith
February 5, 2010
12:29 pm
You won't find me disagreeing.
tdaxp
February 5, 2010
3:03 pm
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
An Island Apart « Automatic Ballpoint
February 7, 2010
1:17 am
Aris Katsaris
February 8, 2010
11:29 am
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