I am getting a new passport. It’s a lot of work now, presumably because of 9/11, and the new Canadian passports have intricate new security features (holograms, invisible digital printing, ghosted photos, the works.) I have to submit nearly every piece of government-issued ID I have.
It seems I cannot do a simple errand without getting interested in the hows and whys of doing it, and so I started researching the history of passports. It raises an interesting point: passports were initially letters from a King, requesting safe passage for the bearer of the letter. This Canadian website states that the first known “passport” was a letter issued in ancient Persia in 450 B.C., while this British website claims the origins are unknown and cites one of the earliest existing passports (in the form that we know today) as being marked with the signature of King Charles I in 1641. The current Canadian passports still bear something of this heritage, and reflect our monarchistic tendencies: a letter from the Queen requests safe passage and protection for the owner of the passport.
Where did this idea of safe passage get lost? A passport seems to guarantee very little these days. I think we all know stories of friends who are hassled because they have been determined to look “suspicious” for some illogical reason, despite their valid passports.
Perhaps some clues lie in the important differentiation between holding a passport and holding citizenship that is made on the Canadian Passport Office website. On the site, the passport is stated to be simply a travel document that identifies the bearer.
It is easy to subconsciously equate a passport with citizenship, since it seems to imply citizenship. Of course, citizenship is a bigger issue that extends into personal histories and emotional ties. Canada’s borders have been much more stable than those of other countries, making citizenship for those born here relatively cut and dried. Poland, the place where my family comes from, has been wiped off the map and had several border revisions due to invading armies from both Russia and Germany. In fact, some of my relatives were born in what was technically considered Germany at the time, but of course consider themselves Polish. By moving to Canada as children, they hold Canadian passports and nothing else. How arbitrary is birthplace?
And how arbitrary are the disputes between nations for the people caught in the middle? The most interesting case of citizenship \\vis ˆ vis\\ passports has to be the situation of the “lost Russians” of Latvia. Russians who emigrated to Latvia during the Russian occupation, and that remain there ten years after Latvia obtained independence, are holders of so-called “alien passports”, that identify them simply as not citizens of Latvia. It is a move that is widely read to be a broad, discriminatory stroke, seeing as these individual Russians likely had very little to do with the machinations behind the occupation of Latvia. It becomes additionally disturbing when one notes that children born in Latvia to those holding “alien passports” are also not considered citizens of Latvia. However, emotions and citizenship are very tied up – with independence a scant decade ago, perhaps those holding the reins of power in Latvia are unwilling to admit that these Russians have now effectively become Latvians, or at least integrated into Latvian life. The fear of an old foe is great indeed.
What then, constitutes citizenship, and therefore the right to safe passage to other friendly countries under the name of your monarch or ruler?
7 replies on “Safe Because of Implied Citizenship”
get a new passport, babe. these americans are looking for "ter’rists" under every nook and cranny.
It is interesting, the idea of moving to a place being equated with approval of what that nation stands for. It does seem like a vote of some kind. I know a lot of Canadians in America that worry about these things, and the reflection their choices make on them. Sometimes opportunities are too good to pass up, wherever they are located. My cousin is currently working as an airline pilot in the United Arab Emirates. Does he support their goverment? I’m not sure, but I do know he was offered considerably more money to fly for an airline based there than he was making here, so he went. We tend to ask these questions a lot more when someone settles in America, which I think is a good examination of conscience, but a move sometimes simply means an opportunity for change, money, personal growth, or any combination of these things.
Where one chooses to settle, either temporarily or permanently, can sometimes be quite arbitrary. A generation or two ago, some Eastern European immigrants had to choose between places they didn’t know very well – Australia and Canada, in one story that I remember. I think Canada was chosen because it seemed not so far away from Europe, and yet offering a blank slate. Not a compelling "vote" in favour of Canada, it’s true. But interesting to think about the misperceptions, fantasies, and other reasons for choosing a place to immigrate to – the American dream being the strongest example I can think of.
worrying at citizenship (well, or even just residency) lately too, due to various American enticements in my life. What does it signify to choose a country and call it home? I like my friends in NYC, but I do not condone the official policies of the USA. If I choose to live there, am I making a statement of political support, like voting? Worse maybe, cause my $$ goes into the system on an ongoing basis? A Canadian friend of mine who lives in USA with a greencard is considering leaving due to his disgust with the Bush regime and larger police state issues. He said to me: "At some point you have to get off the apple cart." I find it a confusing statement. Who is watching? what greater good or ill am I doing by simply feeding and sheltering my body in various geographical regions?
by the way, thanks for the cool passport history!
I take your point, MK, but at the same time I can’t help but worry about when to draw the line…when is another country’s foreign (or domestic) policy soooo bad, that to even be associated by geography is to be too complicit? PS – have quoted and linked over at http://www.digitalmediatree.com/sallymckay. Hope you don’t feel like I’m poaching.
don’t even get me started about latvia. something like a fifth of their total population is essentially stateless and disenfranchised.