Introduction And Summary
This is Part 5 in my “Little Red Dual Citizenship Book” Series. For parts 1 to 4, see the Appendix.
The proliferation of “dual citizenship” in the 21st century is a benefit for individuals. As Boston Globe Correspondent journalist David Shribman explains, dual citizenship may be a critical part of an individual’s identity. That said, “dual citizenship” may not be a benefit (and may be a danger) for countries in certain circumstances. The purpose of this post is (in part) to question whether dual citizens of a country should have the same class of rights as those who are ONLY citizens of the country. Should Canada/US dual citizens living in Canada have the same rights of citizenship as those who are ONLY Canadian citizens living in Canada. For example, should dual citizens be permitted to vote in Canadian elections? Should dual citizens be permitted to run for public office?
This recent article in the Toronto Globe and Mail reinforces the validity of this question.
Tariffs, violations of USMCA, US water shortages, questioning the location of the Canada/US border and describing Canada as the 51st state are (tragically) changing how Canadians perceive the USA.
Thoughts of those with Canada/US @dualcitizenship?https://t.co/1FSzHNZL9k
— John Richardson – Counsellor for US persons abroad (@ExpatriationLaw) March 28, 2025
In the 20th century little thought was given to citizenship. Most people were citizens of their country of residence. They were either born in the country or they were born to parents who were citizens of the country. Many who were entitled to second citizenships through ancestry or naturalization never considered the possible benefits. Generally, citizenship by ancestry (are you technically a citizen of another country because of your ancestry?) was considered to be a “technicality”. The concept of “citizenship by investment” didn’t exist.
For most of the last century many countries (including Canada and the United States) prohibited dual citizenship. In some cases (including Canada and the United States) the acquisition of a second citizenship resulted in the automatic loss of the first citizenship. Cultural and legal presumptions against dual citizenship discouraged interest in exploring the benefits of citizenship.
Part A – The Evolution To A Culture Of Dual Citizenship
The last quarter of the 20th Century may be described as:
The Evolution Away From The Presumption Of The “One citizenship at a time!” Principle
Toward a culture of acceptance of “dual citizenship” – the recognition of the importance of citizenship to the individual
What changed?
1. A Gradual Evolution To A Culture That Recognized The Importance Of Individual Rights
The 1948 creation of the “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” was a direct result of the second world war. The Declaration, created under the leadership of John P. Humphrey* (a McGill University law professor) was significant because it was an expression of an international consensus that individuals do have rights (aspirational as they may seem to be). Of particular note is Article 15 which reads:
Article 15
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality.
2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
At a minimum, Article 15 is an expression of an international consensus that (1) citizenship/nationality matters and that (2) citizenship/nationality is a “right” that belongs to the individual. I am not suggesting that the “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” was a direct cause of an acceptance of “dual citizenship”. But, it is interesting that the acceptance of dual citizenship seems to have gained momentum after the 1948 Declaration. The words “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality” suggest limitations on the power of governments to strip people of their nationality. Notably, the “Declaration” is NOT an international treaty. It is simply a statement of principles.
2. Changes In Citizenship Laws Recognizing The Importance Of Citizenship Dual Citizenship
Canada And The United States As Examples
In Canada and the United States, the evolution toward an acceptance of dual citizenship began in the final third of the 20th century.
The United States – In 1967 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Afroyim v. Rusk (reinforced by the 1980 decision in Vance v. Terrazas) that the United States could not strip U.S. citizens of their citizenship if they performed (what U.S.legislation deemed to be) expatriating acts.
Canada – In 1977 Canada amended the Canada Citizenship Act to allow for dual Canadians to become dual citizens.
The takeaway is:
Prior to the 1948 “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” citizenship was viewed primarily from the perspective of the interests of the state/government. Generally, citizens were subjects of the state and “citizenship was subjectness”.
After the 1948 “Universal Declaration Of Human Rights” citizenship has been viewed mostly from the perspective of the individual. Citizenship gives individuals rights against the state/government. Rather than a relationship based on obligations to the state, citizenship is now viewed as an asset that affords individuals (1) rights against the state and (2) a country where one has a right to live. It is no surprise that citizenship can now be purchased. It is therefore no surprise that the interest in citizenship by ancestry has increased.
Part B – Dual Citizenship And The Clash Of Citizenships – When The Rights Of The Individual Create Problems For The State/Society
In 2025 Dual citizenship is viewed primarily as a benefit to individuals. Less thought is given to how dual citizenship may be damaging to the interests and obligations of the state. A common, but not universal exception to allowing dual citizenship, is a prohibition on dual citizens serving in public office. For example, Australia prohibits members of their legislature from being dual citizens.
Dual Citizenship From The Perspective Of The Individual vs. Dual Citizenship From The Perspective Of The State
From the perspective of the individual: In a world of sustained peace and prosperity it is easier to view citizenship rights from the perspective of the individual. Multiple citizenships are generally (with the exception of U.S. citizenship) a benefit to an individual. The more citizenships, the more places to go. For the most part citizenship gives rights to the individual with few obligations.
From The Perspective Of The State
What if dual citizenship is considered from the perspective of the state? What does it mean to have citizens who are also citizens of another country? Can dual citizenship create conflicts in obligation of loyalty? Can conflicts caused by dual citizenship actually impair the sovereignty of a country? Has the pendulum swung too far in favor of considering citizenship as a bundle of rights accruing to the individual? When does “dual citizenship” pose a threat to the sovereignty of a country? Should “dual citizens” have rights that are identical to those with citizenship in only one country? What happens when one is a citizen of two countries that have conflicting interests? Under what circumstances can “dual citizenship” threaten the sovereignty of a country? Should (as Russia requires) dual citizenship be disclosed? Has the time come to balance the dual citizenship rights of an individual against the obligations of states to protect their sovereignty?
The “Weaponization” Of Dual Citizenship Against A Country
I. “Dual Citizenship: as a threat to the political sovereignty of a country
Sovereignty And Voting Rights Afforded Dual Citizens:
– should nonresident dual citizens be permitted to vote in a country’s elections? As Professor Ronan McCrae notes there are significant number of Irish citizens living outside Ireland. Is it reasonable for them to use their voting power in ways that might be incompatible with the Irish citizens who live in Ireland?
– should nonresident citizens (dual or not) be permitted to vote in a country of citizenship if they don’t live there? What about U.S. citizens living outside the United States as residents and/or citizens of other countries. Should they have the right to vote in U.S. elections? Consider the efforts of the Democratic Party to mobilize U.S. citizens in Canada (many with little or no connection to the United States) to vote in U.S. elections.
– should resident dual citizens be permitted to vote in elections of the country where they reside? What if their country of second citizenship is not friendly to the country where they reside? Should U.S./Canada dual citizens (given the U.S. hostility to Canadian sovereignty) be permitted to vote in Canadian elections? There has recently been discussion of “foreign interference” in Canadian elections. To what extent does dual citizenship facilitate “foreign interference” in Canada’s elections?
Given the penchant for the U.S. to enact extra-territorial laws (example FATCA and citizenship taxation that pose threats to Canada) should Canada allow Canada/U.S. dual citizens to vote in Canadian elections?
II. Sovereignty And “Dual Citizen” Rights To Run For Public Office And Serve In Public Office
– Australia has a clear prohibition on dual citizens serving in the Australian legislature.Is it unreasonable to expect that members of the government of Australia be a citizen of ONLY in Australia?
– In a recent Canadian election it was discovered that the Conservative Andrew Scheer was a dual Canada/U.S. citizen. Is it a threat to Canadian sovereignty for the Prime Minister of Canada to be a U.S. citizen? (Interestingly Liberal Leader Mark Carney claims to be in the process of renouncing his U.K and Irish citizenships (although I suspect that he won’t follow through unless the Liberals form the next government).
III. Sovereignty When dual citizenship obligates a citizen to obey the extra-territorial laws of another country
– U.S. citizenship-based taxation: U.S. citizenship taxation is a mechanism that the United States uses to extend its tax, reporting and penalty regime into other countries. This is not a theoretical problem. What if the effect of compliance with U.S. tax rules disables a country’s citizen/residents from fulfilling their financial planning responsibilities to themselves, their families or society as a whole.
– U.S. citizenship-based taxation (in some instances) requires U.S. citizens to violate the laws of their country of residence. For example, in some instances the U.S. Internal Revenue Code mandates compliance when compliance would violate the laws of the dual citizen’s country of residence!
– U.S. citizenship-based taxation and FATCA as the forced disclosure of banking and financial information of individuals married to a U.S. citizen spouse. For example, the FATCA IGAs result in the Canada forwarding the Canadian bank account information of Canadian citizens (some are dual citizens and some may share bank accounts with dual citizens) to the IRS.
Part C – A Compromise Between The Rights Of The Individual And The Needs Of The State
In 2015 Candidate Justin Trudeau claimed that “A Canadian Is A Canadian Is A Canadian”. Was he correct?
Dual citizenship is not compatible with a principle that all citizens of a country should have exactly the same rights. When is it reasonable to restrict certain opportunities to those who are NOT dual citizens?
Canada’s aquiescence to the U.S. imposition of FATCA on U.S./Canada dual citizens residing in Canada is a clear recognition that Canada will not treat dual Canada/U.S. citizens the same as Canadian citizens who do not hold U.S. citizenship. In other words, FATCA clearly established the principle that not all classes of citizens should have the same rights. Perhaps this principle can and should be extended to other areas.
For example:
Should Canada/U.S. dual citizens be denied the right to vote in Canadian elections?
Should Canada/U.S. dual citizens be prohibited from running for public office in Canada?
Should Canada/U.S. dual citizens be denied the tax free capital gains exemption on the sale of a principal residence if the effect of that is to allow the U.S., via it’s tax system to siphon the gain out of Canada and into the United States?
Conclusion
Dual citizenship does have its privileges for individuals? But, at what point should dual citizenship for the individual be understood to be “duel” citizenship for a country?
The recent threats from the Trump administration suggest the time has come to consider these questions.
I don’t pretend to have the answers. That said, these are clear examples of when “dual citizenship” can become duel citizenship, which burdens a country’s sovereignty.
John Richardson – Follow me on X.com @ExpatriationLaw
____________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A – Previous Posts In “The Little Red Dual Citizenship Series”
Part 1 – Dual Citizenship Reporting
Part 2 – Under What Circumstances Is Citizenship By Ancestry Justified?
Part 3 – Could U.S./Canada Dual Citizens Residing In Canada Determine The Outcome Of A U.S. Election? (The Democrats Hope So)
Part 4 – A Change In Canadian Law Increase Canadian “Citizenship Through Ancestry” Options For Americans
Part 5 – When Dual Citizenship For The Individual, Becomes “Duel Citizenship” For The State
_______________________________________________________________________
*Appendix B – A Tribute To Professor Humphrey
In the mid 80s I attended a conference on Canada’s Charter of Rights. Professor Humphrey was one of the main speakers. At the time I had no idea of or appreciation that I was in the presence of a such am important contributor to the development of human rights. He died about a decade later. I suspect that this conference may have been one of last public appearances. The statement:
“The difficult we do today. The impossible takes a bit longer.”
seems to be an accurate description of what an individual can accomplish.