Free trip to Israel

I know several Americans and Argentines who have gone on this program; all have spoken highly of it. For several it was an experience of a lifetime. It is a remarkable opportunity.

I also know of an actual tour group that, before the current intifada, sang happy Zionist songs while strolling through East Jerusalem on a national holiday.

My feeling is not one of hostility, but one of concern. I worry that these “birthright” tours cultivate a species of Zionism that stresses a sense of entitlement and an under-examined identification with the state — while rather underplaying the bad side of Israeli history.

Rather than choosing, I’d say these tours provide wonderful possibilities *and* serve an ideological purpose that makes me uncomfortable.

For what it is worth, my family is today Israeli — having once emigrated to Turkish Palestine.

Matt – How hostile could such a comment be?;)

Yirmi – I can only speak for my personal experience and at best the experience of my group (a group of 40 students from Princeton and Dartmouth). We did not engage in the activities you describe nor do I think did we share some of the sentiments you talk about. But I’m sure this varies.. just as opinions about Israel vary widely.

Jacob – It looks like Israel Experts is just one of many organizations that organize trips. If you look on this page you’ll see on the bottom that Hillel is organizing trips around various themes this year. There’s one called Peace and Politics.

This seems to be a new approach, by the way. When I went, we went by school. For me, it was certainly an educational experience in terms of getting to know some Princeton and Dartmouth undergrads. The new themed trips sound like a great idea.

The security/political situation is a real concern for me. I’m planning a visit to Israel later in the year, for a summer school at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I’ve bought the tickets, but am now considering cancellation.

My reasoning on this isn’t entirely rational. I have no sympathy with academic boycotts based on political objections to government policies. And I know that the statistical risks aren’t that great. But the combined effect is that, if I go, I have to run risks generated by policies I reject (assassination, annexation etc).

Of course, the same is true even if I stay at home. My own government has supported Bush all the way and thereby promoted terrorism everywhere.

So I’m putting off the decision until the last possible moment, in the hope that something good will happen.

“I find it utterly indefensible that any state should claim the right to citizenship is vested uniquely in one ethinc group.”

In the US, a child whose parents are American citizens is also an American citizen no matter where he is born. Other countries have similar policies. The principal is no different from how the US gives citizenship.

Phill – I am assuming you’ve never been to Israel based on your comment. I have rarely been to a place that is as ethnically diverse as Israel. This was actually a point I had meant to mention in my original post, thanks for reminding me. The diversity of races and ethnicities is considerable in Israel, I found it fascinating and wonderful.

John – I was in Israel in December to keynote a conference. I was worried and not everyone around me was enthusiastic about my plans to go, but when it comes down to it, the chances of anything happening are really quite small.. especially if you stick to some rules such as avoiding buses (which in case of such a visit should not be too difficult). I recommend going, but of course in the end we all have to make such decisions for ourselves..

I’m not exactly a big Israel supporter either, but I wouldn’t hesitate for a second to go to Israel, and if I wasn’t married I just might try to go to Israel to study Arabic and Hebrew. I’ve always taken pride in having a local accent in whatever language I learn, and having a south Levantine accent in Arabic would suit me just fine. I suppose that there is some chance of getting killed, but terrorism ranks way, way down on the list of the world’s biggest causes of premature death, even in Israel.

A boycott can be a fine thing, but I would never let it get in the way of seeing for myself. If it wasn’t for my paperwork status, I’d have visited Cuba years ago. I even looked into taking a trip to North Korea once, but I would actually be threatening my wife’s employment if I went.

Dan, this shocks most Americans to hear, but the US does not in fact extend citizenship automatically to the children of US citizens born outside of US territory. There is an extra condition: at least one of the US citizen parents has to have lived in the US for at least 10 years before the child is born.

A number countries limit access to citizenship to people born abroad with parents who are citizens, although not as many as there used to be. Fifty years ago, it was the norm to refuse citizenship to a child born abroad who, for whatever reason, possessed a foreign citizenship, or to compel them to give up foreign citizenship on reaching majority. Some states still do this. In Europe, there is also an international treaty limiting people’s access to multiple citizenships, even when they can claim several by birth.

I have plenty of problems with ethnic citizenship policies, but Israel has citizens who are not Jews, and other nations extend citizenship automatically or at least semi-automatically to foriegn nationals who are members of a particular ethnic group. Germany is the flagship example, but it is true of a number of other European nations as well.

>No, under this principle the Palestinian refugees who were citizens
>under the British mandate would be citizens.

Israel != Palestine

>People who have not had
>an ancestor so much as visit the place since the crusades would not be
>eligible for citizenship.

That’s because Israel != Palestine and Israel is the Jewish nation just as America is the American nation..

>The indefensible component is the part that sets up a special set of
>rules for jews to become citizens. The US used to have similar rules
>for whites, we now reject those rules as inherently racist.

And we have special rules for Americans to become American citizens. Some people might claim having special rules for Americans to become American citizens is wrong, but they would be dopes.

>A jew can leave the state for as long as they like and return.

Uh, that’s because Israel is the Jewish nation just as America is the American nation.

>A Palestinian living in East Jerusalem in a house their family has lived
>in for generations cannot return if they are absent for 7 years.

Uh, that’s because Israel is the Jewish nation just as America is the American nation.

>If making special rules and privileges for jews is what makes a jewish
>state then the concept is utterly indefensible and the better the
>constitution is ammended to remove that discrimination the better.

Some people might claim having special rules for Americans to become American citizens is wrong, but they would be dopes.

>Discrimination and predjudice is not justified by the form that
>resistance to discrimination and prejudice takes. Israel had many
>decades of opportunity to eliminate discrimination of its own accord
>and choose not to.

Some people might claim having special rules for Americans to become American citizens is prejudice and discrimination, but they would be dopes.

I’m curious if any other nations offer anything similar. Armenia in particular is trying hard to maintain contact with its diaspora.

Dan,

“Uh, that’s because Israel is the Jewish nation just as America is the American nation.”

Does that mean Arab Israelis aren’t really Israeli citizens?

Dan, you’re the one who equated the American type of citizenship with the Israeli one. I find it dubious personally.
Are they the same or not? If so:

America is the American nation, non-Americans are not American citizens.

Israel is the Jewish nation, non-Jews are not Israeli citizens.

Dan,

Please also note that “Jewish” and “American” just don’t play the same roles, both the the law and generally. One is an American citizen if either both of one’s parents or (Usually) one’s mother is an american _citizen_ and one is born anywhere. (Note the it’s not always the case if only one’s father is an american citizen and one is born outside the US). But , it would be very odd to say one becomes a “Jewish citizen” if one’s parents are Jewish. That’s obviously becuase they just aren’t the same sort of categories. We see this, too, in that one is automatically an American citizen if one’s born in the US, regardless of one’s ancestry, while one surely doesn’t become Jewish by being born in Isreal. This is all besides the point as to whether such trips are a good thing or not. And it should be noted that several other countries have citizenship laws that are in some ways similar to Isreals- Germany’s and Ireland’s are so in some ways. (I find them all similarly morally problematic.) But, my point is only that your comparison isn’t a sound one.

>Please also note that “Jewish” and “American” just don’t play the same
>roles, both the the law and generally.
>One is an American citizen if
>either both of one’s parents or (Usually) one’s mother is an american
>citizen and one is born anywhere. (Note the it’s not always the case
>if only one’s father is an american citizen and one is born outside
>the US). But, it would be very odd to say one becomes a “Jewish
>citizen” if one’s parents are Jewish.

In the circumstance you mentioned it would be odd to say one became an American citizen also since one would be born one. It would always be odd to say one is a “Jewish citizen” so who really cares?

>That’s obviously becuase they
>just aren’t the same sort of categories.

Amazingly enough the example you just gave makes the process to being (or becoming) Jewish very similar to being an America. Take the case of Orthodoxy.

How to be Jewish:
1) Mother is Jewish.
2) Pass some test and approved by the rabbis.

How to be American:
1) Mother is American (maybe the father)
2) Pass some test and approved by the government
3) Born in the USA

So the difference is being an American has an extra 3rd clause while being Jewish doesn’t. Of course practically no country in entire world has that extra 3rd clause which makes it in to an idiosyncracy of being American.

>And it should be noted that
>several other countries have citizenship laws that are in some ways
>similar to Isreals- Germany’s and Ireland’s are so in some ways. (I
>find them all similarly morally problematic.)

OK. I’ll drop the American comparison and start using Irish and German instead. From now on replace all reference to the word USA in what I said with references to Ireland or Germany instead. So here is how to be a German side by side with how to be Jewish.

How to be Jewish:
1) Mother is Jewish.
2) Pass some test and approved by the rabbis.

How to be German:
1) Mother is German (maybe the father)
2) Pass some test and approved by the government

Hi, I’m a 70 year old Palestinian who lived in Israel until I was forced out in the 1940s as a child. I think it would be a great educational experience to return to the place I was born, maybe even permanently.

Is there any chance that I could be given a free trip to Israel? Considering the title of the link (birthrightisrael) I think it would only be appropriate. I would certainly enjoy my time there (it is where I was born) and I certainly do have an interest in Israel.

You say that many people who have little connection to a Jewish heritage are allowed to go, so I think that bodes well for me. So how about it? Will someone pay for a free trip from the refugee camps to visit the land I grew up in before I was forced out at gunpoint?

Anyone?

So here is how to be a German side by side with how to be Jewish.

how exquisite that german blood-and-soil laws are your evidence to jusify israeli laws. and tom paulin got in trouble for making just such a comparison. i agree, if the germans do it, it must be right!

JFD: [reading Crooked Timber] No way!
[to LIL] Come over here and check this out!

LIL: What, dude?

JFD: The Jews have got their own Love Boat!

LIL: No f*cking way! [Rushes to the monitor] Dude! The Jews have got their own Love Boat!

JFD: I know!

LIL: That’s so f*cked up!

JFD: I know! The Jews really are the Chinese of the West!

No no, the most predictable cliché was “the situation is much more complex than most people realize, especially from afar.”

Dan,

You are engaging in pure self deception when you claim that the US citizenship laws are equivalent to Israel’s. Despite the many injustices that the US has visited on native americans, the US invaders recognize them as citzens.

Your argument is that Israel is the Jewish state therefore the Jewish state can discriminate in favor of Jews.

Esther at least admits that she is an advocate for the indefensible when she says ‘please do not respond with uncomfortable facts about the apartheid state’. [AS ANYONE WHO CARES TO CHECK WILL SEE, I NEVER WROTE ANY SUCH THING.. NOR OTHER COMMENTS THIS COMMENTATOR HAS ATTRIBUTED TO ME IN THIS THREAD, EH]

Please do not use the truth when refering to the apartheid state, please do not mention that it was founded on ethnic cleansing, please do not mention that Jewish terrorists founded the state.

Please only tell us the comfortable facts that allow us to enjoy our predjudices unexamined and in peace.

Academic boycotts of South Africa were effective for a singular reason, the South Africans wanted to enjoy their self delusion that the West actually understood and supported them, that their opponents were few and unrepresentative. An academic boycott of the Israeli apartheid state is needed to bring home the fact that the world does not support a state based on discrimination and that no, this is not anti-semitism.

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1

“But the root of this problem is an essentially racist concept of the state.”

This is an abuse of language. Anyone determined to can become a Jew. Apart from exceptions like Michael Jackson, the same isn’t true of race. Indeed, the Mizrahi and the Ethiopian Jews might take exception to your characterization of them as all belonging to the same (presumably “white”) “race.”

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) – GPGshell v3.10
Comment: My Public Key is at the following URL:
Comment: http://www.alapite.net/pgp/AbiolaLapite.txt

iD8DBQFAgSw7OgWD1ZKzuwkRAstmAJ9/FHxeYMhkyu0eyRqX6qrsliGncgCfSP6M
nW02wJXMZP82tj0HfJp9Z6M=
=SQRT
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

One more thing: The most recent draft Palestinian constitution includes guaranteed citizenship rights for the Palestinian diaspora – and only the Palestinian diaspora – similar to what the Israeli Law of Return provides for Jews. Such a law in Palestine is moral and necessary for the same reason as in Israel – that Palestinians in the diaspora have frequently faced persecution and been in need of sanctuary. I wonder how many of those who are comparing Israel’s law of return to apartheid or fascism will do the same with respect to Palestine’s.

The problem isn’t that Israel, Germany, Italy et. al. have laws of return – it’s that some countries don’t. Things tend to become ugly for diaspora populations in times of crisis, particularly if they are “merchant minorities” like Indians, Chinese, Lebanese or Jews. It’s hardly “indefensible” – in fact, I’d call it a positive moral good – to give members of such communities someplace to go when trouble strikes.

This is an abuse of language. Anyone determined to can become a Jew.

Racism is the idea that there are races apart. It does not matter whether it is applied appropriately or inapprorpriately, it is the same thing.

What you are doing here is engaging in slippery logic. Jewishness will have a racial/genealogical basis when it suits you and a religious basis when it does not.

Whether a state discriminates on one basis of the other it is illegitimate. Israel is not a liberal democracy, it is an appartheid state built on vicious discrimination and lead by an acknowledge war criminal.

I really don’t see why people should not criticize propaganda tours to such a state.

Jonathan,

Even when written down as informed and factual correct as your first story, you manage to leave out a part of the actual problem. Those in possession of a cultural heritage of a few thousand years old are considered welcome according to the law of return, but those with a physical and cultural heritage going back only 60 years are explicitly refused entry into Israel. The reason for that is obvious, Israel wants to stay a Jewish state. Not a state for those that used to live on that land. It is therefore a bit of a strange name ‘Law of return’ and not exactly comparable to the German and other regions that have such a law.

It remains a matter of opinion and debate where preferential treatment crosses the line into objectionable exclusion of others.

Your second post starts with the standard disingenious “but look at them” foolishness that gives the debate about Israel/Palestine such a bad name. (yada yada yada, if israel had granted equal citizenship rights to pals and jews alike they didn’t need that crap, they’d be happy living together, if it wasn’t for the evil Jewish occupation of Palestine, all things would be fine, the settlements, the moral right of Jews to live in Hebron, the PA hasn’t got much of a choice in this, do they? If they accept Jewish settlers into Hebron do you think that Israel will accept that the PA use deadly force to control that mad bunch? Don’t think so. etc. etc. repeat silly arguments indefinitely)

Walt,

Why do you believe that an intelligent conversation about Israel has to avoid denouncing discrimination?

It remains a matter of opinion and debate where preferential treatment crosses the line into objectionable exclusion of others.

Absolutely, thus the controversies over matters like affirmative action and laws of return. I used to oppose both and have come around to supporting both. My views, like anyone else’s, are open to criticism, but I think they show that the issue isn’t as morally black and white as people like Phill believe.

Jonathan: it’s true, and important, that Israel is far from the only state founded on a basis of tribal self-determination, and that its policies are not too different from others so founded. But as much as I respect your views and admire your moral commitment, that fact leads me to the opposite conclusion from yours. I think that *all* tribal states are in a fundamental sense illegitimate and ought, at least in principle, to be reconstructed on non-tribal lines. I know you’ve discussed the issue of “national minority” approaches to ethnic diversity vs. American-style universalist individualism at length on your blog: I see your points on the practical short-term arguments for the former, but believe that in the long term only the latter can be justified.

It is worth pointing out that the anti-tribalist, universal-individualist ethical tradition was upheld by a nontrivial number of Jewish intellectuals in the pre-1948 period: Judah Magnes, Victor Klemperer, Stefan Zweig, to name a few. Perhaps they were dreamers– but their outlook combined the best Jewish moral traditions with the best ideals of the Enlightenment, and it is a shame to see their dreams abandoned. My own discomfort with Zionism is based partly on how it (IMO) crowded out the anti-tribalist counter-tradition in the Jewish diaspora.

I don’t know of any other country in the entire world besides the USA which says if an illegal immigrant comes to the country and has a child, the child would automatically be a citizen.

Ahh. I see. But the fact that one becomes a national of most countries by being born to legal residents exposes a difference between nationality generally and its comparison to Jewishness that you wanted to make.

Perhaps you feel the comparison or analogy is tight enough. I see sufficiently many differences as to question that, myself.

I think that all tribal states are in a fundamental sense illegitimate and ought, at least in principle, to be reconstructed on non-tribal lines.

That’s certainly a respectable and ethically consistent position, but one with which I disagree. I’ll refer you to my comment made here and timestamped 12:25:55 p.m. on 10/18/03:

In any event, it strikes me that a key issue here is the debate over the three basic ways a state can deal with minorities:

1. The individualistic approach: nobody owns the state, and the law treats everyone the same as everyone else.
2. The European approach: the state belongs to the majority, but minorities have legal rights to insure civil equality and maximum self-determination within that framework.
3. The apartheid approach: the state belongs to us and to hell with you.

The first and second options are obviously preferable to the third, but what’s less clear is whether the first is preferable to the second. [The European approach has drawbacks], but the individualistic New World model also has its problems. For one thing, individualistic countries tend to be much more strongly assimilationist than those with some form of minority group rights; it is no accident that as the United States has become less assimilationist, the concept of group rights has taken greater hold. Once the idea of separate groups within the state is accepted at all, these groups will be seen as having distinct interests; conversely, if the state structure does not admit of distinct subgroups, then all will be expected to conform more or less to the societal norm. If Israel became a New World state, many of the rights Arabs have now – for instance, having state-supported Arabic-language institutions – might be in jeopardy.

A second problem is that the New World model can paper over significant differences; even though the state does not officially belong to any group, it often does unofficially. New Zealand is not legally an “Anglo-Saxon state,” but if you ask the average Maori – and maybe even the average pakeha – he’d probably say it is one. Moreover, because this dominance does not officially exist and cannot be officially recognized without compromising the nature of the state, it can be more difficult to control.

Perhaps a better illustration of the last paragraph is the existence of many post-colonial states that are universal-individualist in form but in fact belong to either the majority ethnic group or the president’s ethnic group. This would also, I’m afraid, be true in a binational Israeli-Palestinian state – given the depth of ethnic divisions in the region, a universal-individualist constitution wouldn’t prevent tribalism at the polls and in the legislature absent totalitarian Kemalist nation-building. In light of the circumstances, I think it’s best to recognize and accommodate desires for national self-determination rather than trying to paper them over. If, in the future, regional ethnic rivalries become less acute or the role of the nation-state as the basic unit of political sovereignty gives way to genuine international rule of law, I might change my mind.

My own discomfort with Zionism is based partly on how it (IMO) crowded out the anti-tribalist counter-tradition in the Jewish diaspora.

I don’t think it was Zionism that did that; it was the cataclysms of the twentieth century, and the realization that universal individualism didn’t do much to protect stateless transnational communities from genocide. I’ll admit to a certain wistful sympathy with the idea of universal individualism on a global scale – ethnic nationalism is uglier and based on realpolitik rather than ideals – but I don’t think the conditions for its implementation existed either in 1948 or now.

Given the Israeli context in may be understandable, but the refusal to take back in the refugees has created a situation in which I clearly take side with those that demand a proper solution, not some vague notion of eventual compensation.

What is a “proper solution” then? I certainly don’t support some “vague notion of future compensation” – I support compensation now, at the fair market value of the lost property (which is by my estimate $50 to $90 billion). I would also be receptive to a right of return with reasonable limits (e.g., capped at 250,000, conditional upon acceptance of Israeli citizenship and a background check, preference given to those with family in Israel). Would either or both of these be a proper solution in your eyes?

Would either or both of these be a proper solution in your eyes?

Definitely. For a description of the positions reached in the negotiations and the end of the Oslo process the following text from bitterlemons.org is of interest:

http://www.bitterlemons.org/previous/bl311201ed5.html

(part written by Yossi Beilin – last paragraph)

Regrettably, the refugee issue has become “proof,” as it were, of the “fact” that it was impossible to reach an agreement between the Palestinians and Israel, even at a time when Israel was headed by a particularly moderate government. This claim, however, is quite simply untrue. The talks at Taba were the best ever held between the parties, and the closest ever to reaching an agreement. Were it not for the fact that the talks were held at such a late stage, on the eve of elections in Israel for a new prime minister, it would have been possible to complete the Israeli-Palestinian framework agreement at the Taba talks. If we return to the Clinton-Taba guidelines, we will be able to reach an agreement on all the open issues, including the refugee problem. And the quicker we return to these guidelines, the better it will be for all of us. -Published 31/12/01(c)bitterlemons.org

Yossi Beilin was Justice Minister in the government of Ehud Barak, 1999-2001, and an architect of the Oslo peace process.

I can’t escape from the impression that the current Israeli government has this exact opinion:

Regrettably, the refugee issue has become “proof,” as it were, of the “fact” that it was impossible to reach an agreement between the Palestinians and Israel …

if someone is going to make an argument from authority for israeli laws, the german example is a pathetic one to take.

Where’s the appeal to authority? Israel was facing a refugee absorption problem in 1950 similar to the one West Germany faced in 1946, so it adopted a similar solution. The fact that the Israeli law was modeled after a German law makes it neither good nor bad; it illustrates that form sometimes follows function.

i completely disagree with you — and i’ll say that the example of indian muslims shows that having somewhere to go when trouble strikes may exacerbate incidence of trouble.

I’d be interested in hearing more about this; is there a particular case you have in mind to illustrate your point?

I can imagine that, if diaspora community X has a refuge in country Y, people in host countries might tell its members to “go back to Y” when trouble strikes. The thing is that people will say this even if a refuge in country Y isn’t available. My grandparents are old enough to remember people saying “Jews to Palestine” at a time when Palestine was closed. To take a more recent example, Indo-Fijians after the May 2000 coup were often told “go back to India” even though that wasn’t an option for most of them. I’m not sure how much, if any, this would have been exacerbated if moving to India had been an option.

(i have heard of a documentary on iraqis in israel who also say that the creation of israel made things worse for jews in muslim countries; this is also the opinion of jewish moroccans i know, but i don’t know enough to say).

As I understand it, this is partially true – things did get worse in many Arab countries after Israel was established, but they’d been getting worse in some countries even before that. In Iraq and Syria, pogroms and anti-Jewish laws began in the early 1940s, not only because of Zionism but because of Nazi influence in Arab nationalist movements of the time. In Algeria, pogroms predated even modern Zionism. Jews were persecuted in Arab countries before 1948, but at that time they had no choice but to weather the storm in place.

i think it’s fine, good, proper etc for countries to open their doors to refugees, and people with cultural connections may well prefer to go to countries in which there are many others like them, but for it to be law based on blood or religion is really ugly.

Maybe so, but to my mind this is eclipsed by the far greater ugliness of another fact – that most people who aren’t connected to the victims by blood or history won’t lift a finger for them. The Law of Return was enacted only a decade after the Evian conference.

These days, sensibilities are different from what they were at the time of Evian, and most countries grant some form of asylum to refugees. On the other hand, they only do so when conditions in the refugees’ home countries are really bad, and the trend recently has been to tighten rather than expand asylum requirements. Immigration courts in many countries are actively hostile to asylum claimants, imposing virtually impossible burdens of proof and applying a de facto presumption that they are economic migrants. The EU countries approve an average of 15 to 20 percent of asylum applications and the United States rather less; their procedures are practically designed to err on the side of exclusion, and I’m familiar with several cases where American courts sent asylum seekers home to probable death. (Israel isn’t any better; it approved about 6 percent of asylum applications last year, although it has suspended deportation proceedings for illegal African workers from war-torn countries.)

The refugee system as presently constituted really isn’t enough to render laws of return superfluous.

the law of return isn’t just for refugees right?

No, nor should it be. Things can get very bad for a minority without becoming bad enough to qualify them as refugees under international law, and as things stand now there’s very little that members of such a community can do. Those with money can move to another country – people with money tend to be mobile regardless of the prevailing immigration regime – but those without have to hunker down and bear it. Consider Fiji again, for instance; the rich Indo-Fijians were able to go to Australia or NZ after the coup, but the poor ones (who were taking the brunt of the post-coup rioting) had no place to go.

But hey, at least nobody was being racist, right?

Jonathan wrote:

[a right of return is] hardly “indefensible” – in fact, I’d call it a positive moral good – to give members of such communities someplace to go when trouble strikes.

I’m a little late here (who knew an Israel tourism post would spawn such a discussion), but here goes.

I don’t like ‘laws of return’ of any type, and would hate to be the subject of one. Like Drapeto, the Indian Muslim example springs to mind. Hindu nationalists very much use the existance of Pakistan as an excuse for riots.

Jonathan is right that some riots would happen regardless, but I do think the slogan ‘Pakistan jao ya Kabristan jao’ (go to Pakistan or go to your grave) would have less appeal if there were no Pakistan.

But beyond that any possible violence that a ‘right of return’ may encourage, there are other corrosive effects. One is that co-nationals may view return-eligible nationals with greater suspicion. Now that Peruvians know that Japan has a de facto right of return that protects corrupt ethnic-Japanese leaders, will a Japanese-Peruvian ever get elected PM again. I doubt it.

(Is John Kerry eligible for aliyah? Should we worry he may pull a Fujimori?)

And a right of return may sap the vitality of a minority community by attracting the elite of the community, dooming it to economic marginality, or worse. In India in the 50s and early 60s, better educated Muslims inevitable leaked across the border to PK, leaving behind a mass of impoverished co-religionists — people who could have benefited from having a dynamic Indian Muslim elite. (This changed after 1971, when Indian-Muslim emigration to PK pretty much ended.)

And finally, there’s the internal conflicts a right of return (better termed a right of immigration) can pose. If I knew I was a plane ticket away from being a foreigner, I would have a hard time feeling comfortable as a Canadian. Though here, Jonathan, you could probably explain the personal impact of being subject to a right of return.

Rather than rights of emigration, which only a lucky few minorities have access to, we should aim to open doors for refugees. Israel’s acceptance of Vietnamese refugees is an example of a better ‘return’ policy. I think the lesson of the Evian conference is not the Jews need a national home, but that all countries need to leave their doors open to refugees.

Rather than rights of emigration, which only a lucky few minorities have access to, we should aim to open doors for refugees

i agree, and a point i forgot to make is focusing on laws of return as a means to safeguard minorities doesn’t do anything for minorities who have no state, or have a state in which they are for other reasons also persecuted, or who are persecuted for reasons other than ethnicity.

i think the obsession with having a state as *the* safeguard for one’s rights has been a disaster through out the third world. is having somewhere to go the only way that people can resolve conflicts? if those poor indo-fijians had gone to india, they could have easily been persecuted on any number of grounds. do you think dalits should have their own state? what about pakistani shias?

Things can get very bad for a minority without becoming bad enough to qualify them as refugees under international law, and as things stand now there’s very little that members of such a community can do.

well, the us is a pretty good place for jews and the law of return allows us settlers in israel/i controlled areas. if the law of return was only about a haven for the persecuted, it wouldn’t be so problematic to me, but it’s more than that, it’s connected to a basic view of the state as belonging to a ethnicity, which has all kinds of negative impacts (from housing ownership laws in israel to the turkist guest worker issue germany had for a long time.)

re:asylum seekers, it’s true that there’s callousness, but trying to use ethnocentric sentiment as an end-run around callousness is a bad idea to me. and certainly won’t work for states in which a national ethnicity is a very attenuated concept, like india.

>Now you are arguing in bad faith.

Uh, no. You were simply wrong.

>I also explained that there are a great many nations

You used the word “most.”

>for which nationality is acquired by birth to children of legal residents

Great many? Depending on your metric for “great many” 10 percent could be great many. However it’s almost certainly not true for “most.” This is not even true of industrialized countries like Japan. Take the example of Japan. Quoting the soc.culture.japan FAQ

“0. If both parents are Japanese citizens then the child is a Japanese
citizen; though if the child is known to have a second citizenship for
some reason (such as being born in a country that grants citizenship
due to place of birth) then rules for dual citizens apply.

1. If one parent is a Japanese citizen and one parent is a non-Japanese
citizen, then the child is a Japanese citizen, but must choose by age 22
whether to keep Japanese citizenship or the other citizenship. The child’s
choice is recognized legally by Japan. The child’s choice might or might
not be recognized by the other country, so the child might choose Japan and
still be a dual citizen when in the other country or maybe third countries.
Until recently, this was the rule only if the father was the Japanese
citizen — if the mother was the Japanese citizen, the child might become
stateless as a result. But the law no longer discriminates by parent’s sex.

Note: For a child born overseas, the child MUST be entered in the family
registry of the Japanese parent, technically withing 30 days of the child’s
birth. This can be done at the nearest Japanese embassy.

2. If both parents are non-Japanese, then the child is not a Japanese
citizen. Status depends only on the laws of the countries of the parents’
citizenships, and maybe of the country where the child was born.”

Any cursory check on laws regarding citizenship in nations around the world would see that the Japanese way of doing things is the norm (especially for non-Western countries). For example I decided to look up citizenship by birth in Nigeria via google. And in 10 seconds flat this is what I got.

“25. (1) The following persons are citizens of Nigeria by birth-namely-

(a) every person born in Nigeria before the date of independence, either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents belongs or belonged to a community indigenous to Nigeria;

Provided that a person shall not become a citizen of Nigeria by virtue of this section if neither of his parents nor any of his grandparents was born in Nigeria.

(b) every person born in Nigeria after the date of independence either of whose parents or any of whose grandparents is a citizen of Nigeria; and

(c) every person born outside Nigeria either of whose parents is a citizen of Nigeria.”

Like Ikram, I am quite late to the discussion here but just to make a few specific points regarding some of the issues raised in the immediate comments above.

I don’t like ‘laws of return’ of any type, and would hate to be the subject of one. Like Drapeto, the Indian Muslim example springs to mind. Hindu nationalists very much use the existance of Pakistan as an excuse for riots…..Jonathan is right that some riots would happen regardless, but I do think the slogan ‘Pakistan jao ya Kabristan jao’ (go to Pakistan or go to your grave) would have less appeal if there were no Pakistan.

Yes and no. Yes, to the degree that this kind of slogan would not appear and the charge of dual loyalty would not arise, since there would have been no partition and only a unitary post-colonial successor state but this would not in all likelihood have reduced the levels of conflict – though they might have taken different forms than the communal riot. After all in a unitary state there would be even more mixed urban communities and regions and these could easily flare up from time to time; and communal differences would have to have resolved one way or another, the risks of violence erupting from time to time over this, could well be increased rather than decreased. This was after all, much of the basic rationale for Partition in many moderate minds on both sides of the communal divide; I am not saying that it is right or than one needs to agree with the conclusions, but it is an obstacle that needs to be faced. Certainly, within a single state the respective religious extremists would have been even more paranoid and hyperactive in stoking up passions and preventing any sort of stability.

But beyond that any possible violence that a ‘right of return’ may encourage, there are other corrosive effects. One is that co-nationals may view return-eligible nationals with greater suspicion. Now that Peruvians know that Japan has a de facto right of return that protects corrupt ethnic-Japanese leaders, will a Japanese-Peruvian ever get elected PM again. I doubt it.

This is a problem, though probably more of secondary one and one that would diminish over time. There will always be some businessman like Asil Nadir or crooked politicians like Shirley Porter who will take flight to their countries of origin; not much that can be done about this. A potentially more serious problem arises when any threat of dual loyalties is raised as a consequence of possessing multiple citizenship options; these I take more seriously because they can be used as a systematic way to target broad groups and also are not the result of individual choice but involuntary ascription. Of course it is not nice when your politicians can pull a Fujimori and escape elsewhere, but I think this is probably something that causes discomfort at a relatively superficial level rather than any real problems.

And finally, there’s the internal conflicts a right of return (better termed a right of immigration) can pose. If I knew I was a plane ticket away from being a foreigner, I would have a hard time feeling comfortable as a Canadian.

Ahh, the perennial problems of being an immigrant! Some of these pressures are bound to crop up anyway, I would imagine that adapting to territorial nationalisms that expect newly-arrived immigrants to undergo some sort of assimilation process also has an alternative set of pressures that presents itself and can extract quite high psycho-social costs. One only has to look at the experience of Western European Jews in the 19th century and the situation that many Muslim minorities find themselves in here as well to see this. A Right of Return works best when the largest diasporic communities live in states that have strong links or good relations with the mother country and where the social and political position of these communities is relatively secure. So while for many people of Jewish ethnicity in the US neo-Europes/EU might feel either indifferent or happy about it and such a link present few if any problems in their states of citizenship; it would be a different story for Chinese minorities in East Asia or Russian ones in the CAR.

And a right of return may sap the vitality of a minority community by attracting the elite of the community, dooming it to economic marginality, or worse. In India in the 50s and early 60s, better educated Muslims inevitable leaked across the border to PK, leaving behind a mass of impoverished co-religionists — people who could have benefited from having a dynamic Indian Muslim elite.

This is true, but then I think the problem here lies in the fact that in this particular case the right of return could only have been exercised on an insufficient basis. Even pre-1971 Pakistan couldn’t have absorbed the numbers at stake here (even if it wanted to) also I assume that the right of return rests on there actually being a political and social space for returning immigrants to occupy; this is rarely the case and countries that have seen this kind of return immigration have had real problems in dealing with it see this paper frex:

Rather than rights of emigration, which only a lucky few minorities have access to, we should aim to open doors for refugees. Israel’s acceptance of Vietnamese refugees is an example of a better ‘return’ policy. I think the lesson of the Evian conference is not the Jews need a national home, but that all countries need to leave their doors open to refugees.

I am not so sure about the Vietnamese case; the way I understand it was that Begin did much of it for symbolic reasons to make a point to the international community about how they shouldn’t presume to lecture Israel. After some limited absorption, of not many refugees this was quietly discontinued and the then Israeli govt started talking about there should be some sort of international conference to resolve the issue and share the burden etc. rather ironically exactly what the Great Powers mumbled at the time when Jewish emigration was an issue in the interwar period. Obviously a blanket accessibility under the UN refugee law would be the ideal solution, but in the absence of this and other unlikely things such as world peace breaking out; it is inevitable that only countries with some direct interest will be willing to accept refugees from particular conflicts/episodes of coerced migration.

Do Indian Muslims have a legal right to emigrate to Pakistan? You suggest elsewhere in your post that this hasn’t been so, at least in practice, since 1971. If that’s the case, then your example in fact shows how “go back to X” rhetoric can persist even if it isn’t possible to go back to X. (It may support an argument against setting up ethnic states to begin with, but that’s a whole ‘nother conversation.)

I am unsure about there being any formal legal right as such; though obviously such immigration would have ideological sanction. Given the internal problems of Pakistan and the ethnic+regional conflicts that these have caused, it is unlikely to be an attractive place for many Indian Muslims directly as it is little use moving from a neighbourhood where one gets scapegoated for being a Muslim to one in a different country where one gets scapegoated for being an Urdu speaker or following a minority sect etc. As for “go back to X” rhetoric well fair enough, but this kind of slogan doesn’t really have much to do with any real flight of Muslims to Pakistan – the bulk of this happened in the bifurcated provinces which saw mass rioting; so migration was less an indication of political choice or national allegiance and more a matter of self-preservation. Outside northern undivided India, there was relatively little such migration (e.g. in the South). This kind of rhetoric is a purely symbolic tool that is designed to engage in an Othering process; the other classic favourite of ‘Babar ki olad’ indicates just how far back such an artificial ‘memory’ can go in asserting its fictional claims.

Hmmm. The Israeli law of return hasn’t done this to the Jewish diaspora – with the exception of the countries where nearly all Jews emigrated, olim have tended to self-select ideologically rather than economically. Israel is probably a special case in this respect, but the brain-drain effect of immigration rights would be diluted in any event by the fact that elites are mobile even without such rights.

Also in the case of Israel, capital movements have tended to go in the same direction as well. Moreover, the possibility of migration here being cyclical probably leaves another route open; I don’t think it is as much of a problem for select groups which are highly mobile minorities but only a handful of such de-territorialised minorities exist. For the bulk of settled populations it can have quite regressive effects (dependent on the existing conditions of course).

In any case, I’ve never felt that my right of immigration to Israel has compromised my status as an American – if anything, it has made me feel more like an American by choice. Even in the armed forces, there were many people who were dual citizens of various countries, and my latent dual citizenship didn’t affect my perceived status any more than their active dual citizenship did theirs.

I think the US is a partial exception to this, since it relies on the notion of being a ‘nation of immigrants’ so heavily, even at an idealised level that what matters is not whether one is an immigrant or not but what type of immigrant. Domestic US politics fracture along specific ethnic-racial lines I would assume more than any sort of nationalistic type of divisions. Given the specific nature of the US-Israel relationship it is understandable that there is unlikely to be much by way of tensions arising over security frex; and as Israel is basically a client-state of the US what clashes occur will tend to be over tactical issues as opposed to any real differences over strategy or regional policy. I don’t think this is applicable to many other states in the same fashion at all; India and China frex, have very real strategic interests in many of their neighbouring areas and they don’t share the same kind of client relationship with many of the state that have significant Indian and Chinese minorities; so this would arise in this context and will most likely lead to further polarisation and conflict. Even if we take the US wrt these minorities, I think it is a real concern and something that needs to be thought about carefully.

This leads again to the question of what a refugee is, and the answer usually has more to do with the domestic politics of the asylum country than the humanitarian situation in the asylum-seeker’s homeland. If every member of a persecuted group could be assured of asylum in a free country – or, even better, if nobody were persecuted – then I would agree that laws of return are unnecessary. But we both know this isn’t the case – people are persecuted, the bar for refugee status is set very high, and substantial influxes of asylum-seekers lead to xenophobic backlash at least as often as to acceptance. We should work to change these things, certainly, but as long as they exist, I don’t think Israel or any other country should have to ignore them and structure its immigration laws on the assumption that the rest of the world will act morally.

I think this is fair, particularly given the actually existing state of relations that prevails currently. But the answer might be that even adherence to basically universally targeted legislation, such as the Convention on Refugees provides enough of a scope for any state that has historical or ethnic ties with any displaced population to accept them; without needing something like a Law of Return. The latter has other political implications than just acting as a conduit to a refuge, which is however usually its most popular justification in the public sphere these days particularly in connection with Israel. It makes rather strong claims about inheritance, historical rights to certain geographic areas and also the claim for a state to represent not just those who are legally its citizens but an entire class of designated people, without any need for their individual or collective assent (even when this is usually forthcoming). Needless to say, it is some of these that have created problems and muddied the waters here; I personally remain agnostic on the issue. I don’t see it as a moral right or necessity (this would be covered under any extension of the provisions that currently exist for refugees and other DPs) but then I don’t subscribe to a Zionist historiography so this is understandable. Certainly, I think a state has a duty to protect the safety and welfare of it citizens and should not simply rely on some wistful notion that the rest of the world will do the right thing. We have enough evidence from the past to see that this has rarely, if ever, happened. On the other hand; one comes close to a dangerous road here, as the raison d’être of a state can’t simply be to act as safe haven or fortress – it can of course be one of the main functions but will create problems if it is seen to the sole primary one. As we are far, far from the stage when any displaced persons can even rely on a handful of countries receiving any sizeable number of asylum-seekers without putting up barriers (one only needs to look at the treatment towards people from conflict zones today to see this); I don’t think that anybody can criticise a state for taking measures to ensure that its own citizens are provided for. The question arises when this is used as an excuse not to protect but for other political purposes; as we enter here the realm of politics and intentions, it becomes much harder to judge.

Laws of return aren’t a complete solution – only Diaspora communities benefit from them – and, as Drapeto says, they have their ugly aspects. On balance, though, I’d argue that they are ethical measures, at least of the “lesser evil” variety.

In theory, I can concede that they are a good second-best solution; but in practise I wonder whether even this is true. I mean the only cases where substantial absorption of refugees has happened, has been generally within the context of a regional conflict where populations move back to their states of origin or where their nationality is dominant. For almost all other cases, I think even a selective application of existing refugee provisions would have accomplished the purely humanitarian aims of any Law of Return; even by ethno-national states. But then such Laws are never a purely humanitarian measure; they are as much a political measure, in that they convey an assurance to remaining Diaspora overseas, accomplish some measure of national legitimation and make political demands that other states and political actors are required to respect.

BTW, on the original topic of this thread, I tend to agree with Yirmi.

I found these views interesting, and I have nothing directly relevant to add except that I think it is important to bear in mind that it is rare that these policies simply exist as some sort of subsidised semi-public good. When states and govts target their diasporas for this it is very much in order to obtain something from them; the underlying and main motivation is highly instrumental not altruistic – though these can overlap to a great degree. In other words, what the state is interested, is in what the Diaspora can do for it, rather than what it can do for the Diaspora. This is I am afraid a regrettable reality; what the state wants can vary from a desire to bolster its ideological position and ensure new entrants into its citizenry when it wants to expand its demographic base (which would be applicable in the Israeli case) or look for short-term capital funds, direct investment and scarce managerial and technological transfers (as in the Indian case). The way such overtures are made depends on what exactly is demanded and how urgently it is. It is wise for diasporic communities not to lose sight of this completely; since while they live outside the state, they will face the insider-outsider problem in a particular way; which means that the state will not always act with what they themselves might conceive of as in their best interests. To take one example, the case of the Indo-Fijians has been mentioned here and one can detect a very different response to the situation by the Indian state than what might have been expected; at least part of the reason owed to a desire not to upset regional relations with ASEAN states which would have looked negatively on any military intervention as well as the lack of the Indo-Fijians being a significant political constituency for the GoI. The fact that the most obvious gain of labour (mainly unskilled and semi-skilled) was not exactly in short supply in India, that there was no existential threat posed and that there is a weak consanguineous element to Indian nationalism also played a role. But this kind of calculation is true even of strongly ethno-national states, the policy of Israel towards the Argentinean junta’s persecution of its Jewish minority being a case in point.