Fixed Borders v Multiple Memberships

The mismatch in fixed territorial borders and extraterritorial membership boundaries showcases that when it comes to dual citizenship, this idea of fixed borders is being challenged, especially due to differing political actors and incentives.

Extraterritorial membership refers to individuals or groups who maintain strong cultural, social, or economic ties to a country despite living outside its territorial borders.

As Shapiro stated, “Dual nationality was not a pressing issue in a world of low mobility” which makes sense as the world was not as hyper-globalized as it is today. People did not migrate as easily as they do across the whole globe as they do today.

When individuals are able to hold multiple citizenships, it means they belong to multiple political communities. Which can be problematic.

Where does one's allegiance lie? Country A (birth country) or B?

Moreover, what happens when countries like the US seek to protect those naturalized citizens when they return to visit their homelands and find themselves subject to conscription?

Indian

In India, the diaspora policies demarcate extra-territorial populations — as they see diasporas as agents of change that can catalyze progress in stagnated economies.

These extraterritorial incorporations (such as the Overseas Citizen of India (OCI)) confer the privilege of new membership, recognizing individuals culturally or socially connected to the home country, despite not being citizens.

The concept of the fixed border becomes almost blurred when it comes to extraterritorial membership boundaries, especially with the diasporic community as they are not gaining the very same rights that citizens acquire eg no voting rights.

After all, to be a citizen is the right to have all rights, but if diasporic people have most rights, then does it also follow that fixed borders are no longer an impediment?

Does this not illustrate that borders are porous enough to allow newly formed members who belong to other nations to find life there too?

Deprivation of citizenship can denote denationalization. The state will cut ties to evade legal or moral responsibility for a person or denationalization through fraud and misrepresentation e.g. if it is proven that the person got their citizenship through the aforementioned, then they can have their citizenship revoked.

Citizenship is inviolable

Considering the deprivation of citizenship, under the fixed territories as a Canadian liberal party leader stated ‘a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, which goes to show that in a fixed border, the citizen's right to citizenship is inviolable.

Citizenship as Privilege

On the other hand, some like Hilary Clinton see citizenship as a privilege, rather than a right, and as a consequence, states have had histories of denationalizing citizens when there had been disloyalty or a lack of allegiance especially from a behavior that is hostile to the state.

When it comes to the loss of citizenship, it really does go to show that citizenship requires that you are regarded as the “right kind of citizen” or else, the state does not want to be responsible (of course this is only applied in the most dire cases).

Migrants as Agents of Change

In terms of agents of change, migrants such as diasporas are considered assets by sending remittances and injecting new ideas and resources back at home. They have quantifiable benefits.

Especially in countries like Eriteria where a third of its population lives abroad, the state receives a diaspora tax and sustains itself as a country from citizens abroad.

Extraterritorial membership can prove advantageous to a state entrenched behind fixed borders.

Migrants as Home-Nation Assets

Moreover, change of agents is seen more distinctively with international students too — where countries like Kazakhastans see internationally educated student elites as beneficial to the growth of the country and even encourage it.

They are valued as individuals once they return and are seen as national assets with better access to jobs and opportunities as incentives

Migrants as Norm Creators

And lastly, Ama Ruth Francis, “Migrants Can Make International Law,” Harvard Environmental Law Review 45 (2021), 99–150 — considers how “migrants have the power to make international law as norm creators”.

They can leverage their hybrid positionality in the global north to inform and create legal norms, showing that the global south can be territorially unbounded in shaping international legal norms.

Migrants Political Power

Many diasporic communities still return to vote in their countries. For example, the Caribbean change agents in diaspora communities can affect political matters in their original home state. They have hybrid personalities that can articulate “legal norms that account for the enfranchised and the global dispossessed”.

To respond to global injustices, having global south actors in positions of power can effect the right changes and political actions to be taken. They set rules globally.

This mismatch between the fixed borders and extraterritorial membership shows that this idea of a national character in a fixed border is being challenged by communities across borders who have a say in State matters.

The mismatch is being challenged as political actors and changing country circumstances lead to the allowance of extraterritorial membership in certain circumstances and yet, still try to balance the need to preserve the national character.

As Ayelet stated, there is a paradox with the shifting border when it comes to controlling migration as “States are willing” to fully abandon “traditional notions of fixed and bounded territoriality” — implying that in favorable circumstances, the States can change their stances.

This mismatch underscores the complexity of the modern state and its citizenship conferences. It challenges the traditional understanding of borders as absolute and unchanging.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -

Peter J. Spiro, “Multiple Nationality,”, 2008, Pg 2, week 10

Constantino Xavier, “Experimenting with Diasporic Incorporation: The Overseas Citizenship of India,”, 2008, pg 35

James Bridle, How online citizenship is unsettling rights and identities, 2017 — pg 2

Matthew J. Gibney, “Denationalization,” in Ayelet Shachar et al. eds, 2017, pg 4, week 11

Constantino Xavier, “Experimenting with Diasporic Incorporation: The Overseas Citizenship of India,”, 2008, pg 35–39

Marlies Glasius, “Extraterritorial Authoritarian Practices: A Framework,”, 2017, pg 190,

Ama Ruth Francis, “Migrants Can Make International Law,” 2021, Pg 100.