Back to mama
Citizenship. All these debates about what it means to acquire another and renounce one's original citizenship. The exchanges on social media and in opinion columns are fast and very furious, but the underlying notions about what citizenship means haven't really been articulated.
Senator Grace Poe has announced her candidacy for president, and suddenly, even though this issue should have hounded her from the very beginning of her political career when she ran for senator, her citizenship has been raised as a factor in disqualifying her for the presidency.
We unconsciously use citizenship as a de facto test for either loyalty or love to one's own country. Or both. However, the detractors point out, there are so many citizens who remain citizens, but hate this country, trash this country, or would trade their citizenship for another's in a jiffy. Without hesitation or doubt.
I mean, come on. How many of the 100 million Filipino citizens would migrate to North America if the continent opened its borders? Those Syrians wouldn't stand a chance as the millions of overexcited Filipinos swarm the borders of the United States and Canada, were they given a chance to decamp for cooler climes.
Not that we can fault them, as the opportunities for advancement, or even survival, are so limited here, courtesy of our selfish and short-sighted government officials. Nobody should be faulted for trying to survive, or thrive.
(But then, there would probably be a proportion of the migrants I would say good riddance to, specially those who know nothing except to throw trash in our oceans and streets, those who would steal rather than work, or those who would prefer to sit on their butts and whine rather than do something about whatever they're whining about. So as to that percentage, I would say that the population outflow would be a blessing for the country. They're probably the same bunch that won't remit forex back to our shores, anyway.)
In any case, that desire to leave the country and change citizenship shouldn't be another litmus test for loyalty or love for the Philippines. It's so normal to want to migrate, it's so ingrained in our culture, that what's actually a surprise is when people don't want to migrate.
When strangers discover that you would rather stay and work here in the islands rather than leave, you become this strange specie that they have to examine under a microscope. "For God's sake, what's wrong with you that you want to stay?" Then, you suddenly become judged. "Oh," they think. "You must be afraid of failing abroad." Or worse, the theory becomes, "oh, you must be spoiled and pampered, and want all the comforts of a maid and a driver". Or even, "oh, you must be rich already, and therefore don't need to work like the rest of us."
Who doesn't know anyone with relatives abroad? My point is, the Filipino diaspora is the norm and the reality, and to use this as a disqualifier for Filipino entrants to politics is to ignore a very tangible fact of life.
So I disagree with this judgment about the senator's having applied for and acquired American citizenship. She renounced it, and she came back and reacquired Filipino citizenship. This was probably before thoughts of running for the presidency even crossed her mind. So why use that to question her loyalties to the country?
I would even propose that, it is precisely that she went back into the dirty, messy fold that is the Republic of the Philippines, despite the circus that is domestic politics, the poverty-stricken millions that will be her burden, the broken system of governance, the inefficient infrastructure, the culture of corruption and patronage, and all those things that make this country not a damn worth living in, that we can prove her loyalties to the country.
She left. She came back. She wants to serve the country. Is she a citizen? I think she passed the best test we could have devised for her.
- Latest
