The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Should multiple citizenship be allowed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Icy17 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 123 times Debate No: 94600
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I am for multiple citizenship.

My family for generations has been living in both Poland and Germany. To my individual identity, the geographic boundaries I face are arbitrarily forced on me. I am for dual citizenship so that I can better do my little part in both nations, to bring them closer together. Perhaps only by voting.


I do not believe multiple citizenship should be allowed.

1. It opens all nations involved up to conflicts of interest among voters. Take, for example, Kansas in 1854 after the Kansas-Nebraska Act was put into effect. The state was to use popular sovereignty to determine if it were to be free or slave. However, pro-slavery supporters and anti-slavery supporters that were not citizens of Kansas flooded in to influence the vote. The end result was a bloody conflict ( While this was not a result of dual/multiple citizenship, it shows the danger of having people who vote in elections of a certain state/nation where they do not have and maintain residence.

2. Over time, this will lead to a global government, which while some will argue is a good thing, it is not. First of all, when people can be citizens of multiple nations and vote in all of their elections, chances are that the outcomes of the elections will be the same for all nations more often than not. Since these nations are becoming more and more similar in their laws and enforcement, there is less and less division between governments, regardless of what may be best for the people. Over a long span of time, the nations will merge and slowly an international government will form. Now, an international government is a bad thing because the people who make the best laws for you, an individual, are you neighbors and community members. The further away a lawmaker is, and the less you know them on a personal level, the more difficult it is for them to make a law that helps you the most. So if an international government is making laws for over seven billion people, they will probably not serve even the majority of people very well.
Debate Round No. 1


I would first argue for dual citizenship, before multiple citizenship, since its easier to wrap one's head around.

From an ethical and idealist point of view, it is simple to argue for dual citizenship.

Denying dual citizenship, makes migrants and their descendants second class citizens.
It is easy to observe that changing residence does not switch a person's identity. Their identity will mix their culture of origin with their culture of choice. Their personal interests are as a matter of fact tied to the fates of two cultures. By forcing this person to choose only one citizenship, you are forcing them to deny part of their identity, making it impossible for them to legally represent that part of their identity. This person has now lost the ability to shape the future of a culture that they are in fact part of.
One could argue that the migrant now has the chance to integrate the illegal part of their cultural identity into the one which they legally belong to. This is not the case though. As unlikely it is that a migrant suddenly forgets about their past, even less likely would it be if a local suddenly changed their values because of a new migrant somewhere within their country. Which is all as it should be. I am not arguing against human nature.
Which brings us to how our "western societies" work: majority rule, minority rights. The distopian democracy we need to avoid is the tyranny of the majority (
Migrants will always be a minority, who's identity needs to be protected. The first step is to not reduce the value of their vote. By denying them vote on part of their civil identity, they are discriminated against.
Are then locals not discriminated against, since globally they have less influence? No, since their identity and lives are tied locally, they have the benefit of tighter integration into their local culture as well as generally identifying with the ruling majority.

Giving locals voting rights elsewhere is exactly the anti-pattern of the Kansas example you gave. People should stick to their identities, and not try to influence the laws of other cultures - aside from basic human rights that is, which is why even though the Kansas situation was systematically badly executed, the confrontation was morally justified on the side of the free-staters.

I also believe that dual citizenship will not lead to global government. People will still prefer to live in self governed groups of the like-minded. The point of dual-citizenship is to allow smoother exchange of people between the nations, in case they change their minds, which everyone should be entitled to. Thus the distance between lawmaker and voter will not become an issue.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.