IN modern times, common policies of citizenship are based on the principle "citizenship is a privilege not a right".
Nonetheless, to some, citizenship is neither a privilege nor a right, rather a loyal and legal status in a state.
For others, it is both privilege and right to obligate one with the loyal and legal status. Yet for others, citizenship, in contrast to the age-old principle of inalienable human rights, is a 'conditional' right and that it should thus in principle be revocable.
This conditional right is applicable mostly for those who are naturalized citizens or popularly known as 'immigrant' citizens who might become a threat to national security or harmony.
Theoretically, the principle of conditional right is not applicable to one whose past record of citizenship is not traceable.
In most countries, becoming a naturalized citizen is not easy. In the process towards that citizenship, many countries offer permanent residentship, based on skill and performance. In reality, the process leads many migrants to remain stuck in an immigration purgatory to become a permanent resident, let alone a citizen.
Hence, an immigrant remains as a "sub-citizen" even after becoming a permanent resident or serving a nation for 20 years or more as a tax payee resident. As if immigrants are meant to deserve less.
Briefly, that tells the life of immigrants in many countries. As an immigrant employee, in one way or another, they seem to have less privilege than citizens for the same job scope.
For example, permanent residents are practically ineligible for any permanent position hence are deprived of retirement benefits.
Policies to support healthcare and children's education of immigrants have additional clauses, i.e., imposing additional burdens on parents' shoulders. There are often restrictions on owning immovable properties by the immigrants.
In certain countries there are restrictions to hire a foreigner after 10 years of service. Ironically, those countries do not stop recruiting new immigrant workers. Then why a "10-year" policy?
Perhaps, it is expected that in 10 years the dependency on the immigrant workforce in a given job sector would be abated or at least lessened. Or, perhaps a government wants to avoid any obligation to offer citizenship to the immigrant workers living in the country for a long time.
Whatever the case, what is so wrong to offer citizenship to those who are contributing to build the nation by serving for decades?
If the country needs additional workforce that is met by recruiting immigrant workers, then why not facilitate those who are already here for a long time?
The answer lies in the open secret, keeping an immigrant workforce is economically more "productive". Furthermore, some nations are "afraid" of losing their culture and heritage by naturalizing a mixed population as citizens.
Here's the dilemma. While the immigrant workforce gives the most valuable time and best efforts of their life in building a nation for a long time, where else would they go afterwards?
Is it then too much to expect citizenship for long-term immigrant workers after all necessary background checks such as criminal records, loyalty to the constitution, or language proficiency?
Again, citizenship is a privilege not a right. Nonetheless, to what extent this should be applicable for those who spent the best time of their life for decades contributing to the development of the nation — remains an enigma.
If citizenship is a privilege for those long-term immigrant workers, then the government should rethink their humane rationale behind the policy to recruit immigrant workers and exploit them.
No matter how policy makers or politicians define citizenship, any long-term term immigrant worker who spent most of their valuable time in their life for a country, deserves to have rights as a human, not just a sub-citizen.
Denying that right could be legally justified but can't be humanely endorsed. Holding a legal authority to deny such rights does not make anyone right unless they act humanely right.
This becomes morally more problematic when a nation offers residentship or citizenship based on a golden visa or second home. In such cases, the given legal status is given based on the dollars invested by the incumbent immigrant.
A million dollars seems to be more valuable than serving for a decade as an immigrant. Indeed, no nation is obligated to take foreigners as their own citizens.
But, as long as that nation exploits foreign workforce for their own benefit they have the moral obligation to facilitate their human rights too.
* The writer is Associate Member, UM LEAD ( (Centre for Leadership and Professional Development), Universiti Malaya. He may be reached at tarique@um.edu.my