Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli Citizenship Rights Dr. Douglas Fleming Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa Faculté d’éducation, Université d’Ottawa

As Anderson (1983) pointed out, the idea of a homogeneous and independent state is not a very old concept. Nevertheless, the myth of the ethnically homogeneous state persists. Although most nations have a mixture of jus sanguinis and jus soli rights to citizenship (e.g. Canada), many countries still tend to seek to preserve (at least the myth) of cultural, national and ethnic homogeneity.

In Germany, for example, members of ethnic minorities have a difficult time obtaining citizenship even when born within the nation. Most Turks seem forever to remain ‘guest workers’. Many more states have similar policies, including China, India, Japan, Bulgaria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Iceland, Spain, Russia, Romania, Rwanda, Serbia, and South Korea.

Other countries, such as Denmark, use elaborate language or civic testing as gate keeping devices with minority youth born within its borders. Some have argued that the so-called immigrant receiving countries (the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) have provisions that operate for much the same purpose despite claims to the contrary.

Ethnic purity is a goal of nation-states even when the rules change. Many ethnic groups have found themselves to be newly constituted as minorities in realigned states. Many diasporas have taken place as a result of changed borders. Poland India and Pakistan Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Human rights (as opposed to civic rights) have often originated in treaties that were designed to repatriate minorities (voluntarily or not). Rights are not exclusively associated with the individual liberties. The right of nation-state sovereignty is a direct ancestor of human rights. International treaties that protected the ethnic purity of a nation-state also protected the right of an ethnic minority to a geographical homeland.

Many countries recognize jus sanguinis rights and privileges to those born outside of their borders. Many of these rights are based on religion, language or direct decent from someone considered native to the homeland. Citizens of Commonwealth countries with family origins in the UK are subject to only minimal barriers to obtaining British residency. Israel extends citizenship to anyone of the Hebrew faith by either birth or conversion.

Osborne (2001) points out: Conservatives tend to think of citizenship in terms of tradition and duty (is this jus sanguinis?); Liberals, in terms of rights and responsibilities (is this jus soli?); and Socialists, in terms of social justice and equality (is this the denial of the legitimacy of citizenship?).

Remember that we are talking about legal rights to citizenship. We are not talking about normative attitudes held by majorities about minorities. As recent events in suburban Paris illustrate, one can be a full citizen of the Republic and not be considered fully French.

Three different types of roles: the personally responsible citizen; the participatory citizen; and the justice-oriented citizen. Justice-oriented citizens “critically assess social, political and economic structures and explore strategies for change that address root causes of problems” (Westheimer & Kahne, 2005, p.29).

What type of citizenship is dominant in the world today? In which countries or contexts? Canada? Is citizenship an antiquated concept? What roles do the banal symbols (Billig) of citizenship play? Is hockey a good example? What roles should schools and teachers play? Is a justice-orientation to citizenship possible or desirable?