Naturalization on Demand

Naturalization on Demand
China Post editorial
by Bevin Chu
June 22, 2009

Lately this paper has conducted a number of "thought experiments." Let us conduct yet another such thought experiment, by posing a number of "What ifs?"

For example, "What if individuals in the modern world could be Naturalized on Demand?"

What do we mean by "Naturalized on Demand?"

Naturalization is defined as the acquisition of citizenship by an individual who was not a citizen of a particular nation when he or she was born. An applicant for naturalization must usually become a full-time resident of the particular nation for a minimum period of time. An oath of loyalty or pledge of allegiance is usually required.

Naturalization, in short, is presumed to be a privilege magnanimously bestowed upon the lowly individual by the Almighty State. The individual is required to "earn" his or her naturalized status. The individual is expected to feel undying gratitude upon being "granted" naturalized status.

But is that really how individuals ought to view naturalization? Must this conception of naturalization be considered normal? What if we were to reframe naturalization completely?

In 1215 AD, the people of England rose up and forced King John to sign the Magna Carta Libertatum, or "Great Charter of Freedoms." The Magna Carta forced King John to concede that ordinary individuals had certain rights, that the king must follow certain legal procedures, and that the king was not above the law. The Magna Carta reframed long-standing assumptions about who was subordinate to whom, and who was beholden to whom.

What would happen if naturalization was no longer viewed in Medieval terms, as the transfer of a lowly peasant's fealty to a new Lord and Master?

What if individuals the world over rose up and forced governments to sign a Novum Carta, or "New Charter?" What if they insisted on the right to "Naturalization on Demand?" What if they demanded the right to transfer their citizenship to another country, instantly and immediately, not as a privilege, but as a right, with no limit to the number of times they might transfer their citizenship?

What if naturalization was reframed as the right of a consumer to choose among "public service providers," as the right of the individual to "shop around" among governments the world over, until he or she found one that supplied the best service at the lowest price?

Reframing naturalization in such a manner would demote governments the world over to the level of our cable television service providers, our Internet Service Providers, or our cell phone service providers.

Reframing naturalization in such a manner would force governments the world over to compete with each other in the global marketplace to win our loyalty as their customers.

When any particular government attempted to oppress us, we would no longer be forced to pack up our belongings and flee. We would instead exercise our new found right to "Naturalization on Demand." We would instantly and immediately transfer our citizenship to another, less oppressive country. Physically we would stay put. But politically we would become "Instant Expatriates" enjoying "Instant Political Asylum" and "Instant Extraterratoriality." We would have the right to do this not just once, not just twice, but as many times as necessary to escape political persecution.

What, if anything, would be wrong with such a scenario?

After all, haven't defenders of the modern nation state assured us that the political legitimacy of modern governments must be predicated upon the "consent of the governed?"

Haven't defenders of the modern nation state assured us that if "We the People" refuse to grant our consent, then modern governments have no moral or legal hold over us?

Haven't defenders of the modern nation state assured us that modern governments are not our public masters, but merely our public servants?

Haven't defenders of the modern nation state assured us that human rights are universal moral values that trump national sovereignty and national jurisdiction?

Please be clear about what we are asking. We are not asking whether most mainstream political thinkers are capable of lateral thinking regarding human political institutions. We already know most of them aren't. We already know most of them can't think outside of their familiar little conceptual boxes.

Cultural anthropologists have long known that human collectives hold utterly irrational but deeply entrenched prejudices about what is "normal" and how the world "has to be." That is not what we are asking.

What we are asking is whether "Nationalization on Demand" is logically impossible. Is it akin to asserting that 2+2=5?

What we are are asking is whether "Nationalization on Demand" is morally indefensible. Is it akin to advocating human sacrifice?

What we are asking is the very same question the people of England asked themselves back in 1215 AD, namely: "Why the hell not?"