|
D
|
ual citizenship we may
have to recognize as the rudimentary form of that international citizenship to
which, if our words mean anything, we aspire. We have assumed unquestioningly
that mere participation in the political life of the United States must cut the
new citizen off from all sympathy with his old allegiance. Anything but a
bodily transfer of devotion from one sovereignty to another has been viewed as
a sort of moral treason against the Republic. We have insisted that the
immigrant whom we welcomed escaping from the very exclusive nationalism of his
European home shall forthwith adopt a nationalism just as exclusive, just as
narrow, and even less legitimate because it is founded on no warm traditions of
his own. Yet a nation like France is said to permit a formal and legal dual
citizenship even at the present time. Though a citizen of hers may pretend to
cast off his allegiance in favor of some other sovereignty, he is still subject
to her laws when he returns. Once a citizen, always a citizen, no matter how
many new-citizenships he may embrace. And such a dual citizenship seems to us
sound and right. For it recognizes that, although the Frenchman may accept the
formal institutional framework of his new country and indeed become intensely
loyal to it, yet his Frenchness he will never lose. What makes up the fabric of
his soul will always be of this Frenchness,-so that unless he becomes utterly
degenerate he will always to some degree dwell still in his native environment.”
In this
piece of writing Bourne talks about the universal citizenship. In my
understanding what he means is a form of immigration in which people could
travel anywhere and acquire multiple citizenships. Citizens are often required
to express loyalty to the country of which they are citizens giving up loyalty
to the country in which the where born. This action often creates a conflict of
interest. Bourne tries to explain using France as a guide how people can be
loyal to multiple countries, one at a time. He explains how each citizen can be
subject to the laws and rules of a particular country when being in that
country and loyal to other countries in which they are also citizens at any
other time.
I
decided to focus in this quote written by Bourne moved by my own feelings
regarding my country and how as immigrants we have no choice other than promise
to give up our roots. In this essay Bourne continuously refers to an important
process in which every immigrant redefines itself after immigrating to America.
He also refers to how America is made up of immigrants and shows an unfriendly
approach to the mixture of cultures. It looks like America has taken multiple
cultures to create one which will help the others disappear. Also, this quote
shows how to move forward in allowing the new citizens be not only American
citizens, but to maintain their own identity outside its new land. The French
dual citizenship seems like the ideal of a world where most of the people get
to be immigrants at least once and remain faithful to their origins.
Bourne’s
ideas were very futuristic. Nowadays, we still have to give up our citizenships
in other countries even if we plan to be faithful to America. Bourne mentions a
narrow nationalism which can be seen as illegitimate because it has no
foundations in the roots of the new citizen. In my own words I can say he means
that in America’s idea citizens are supposed acquire their love and loyalty to
this country as soon as they decide to become American citizens even if the process
happens from one day to the next one.
Despite the fact that some immigrants do not have any reason coming from
their hearts or memories loyalty to this country in the eyes of America is an
automatic situation.
In my
country the Dominican Republic, dual citizenship is allowed and is not seen as
treason. Therefore, when I first read the allegiance I was confused by the reasons
why I should stop being faithful to my country of origins. It is not a secret
that I am faithful to both countries and do not see any conflict between loving
the Dominica Republic where I was born and the United States the country who
has given me the opportunity to grow. In my opinion, Bourne’s essay is a very
important eye opener of what the U.S should eventually become an open doors
country who gives its best to immigrants and nationals in the same way.
One thing we can all agree upon is that we are all immigrants to this country. Matters not if you are descendants of the pilgrims, unless you are Native American you are an immigrant. That being said, we have to remember that Bourne wrote this essay in the early twentieth century, where the only immigrants at that time were from Europe and mainly Caucasian. And now almost a century since his essay, this country at present is an open door country. Take for example Lehman College of which we are all familiar with, in any given class you sit in, there are represented almost all ethnicity and cultures in existence today. And to me this is an indication of an open door society of which Bourne were in favor off decades ago. Yes futuristic indeed!
ReplyDelete