Allowing Dual Citizenship

Seoul Should Carefully Look Into Possible Adverse Effects

Before long, some Korean-Americans may likely become Koreans and Americans at the same time ― provided they meet certain conditions.

According to the revised Korean Nationality Act put to prior public notice Friday, the government is moving to drastically loosen its strict single nationality system to allow dual citizenship for Koreans born abroad if they pledge to ``not live as foreigners here" and fulfill Korean nationals' basic duties, including military services and tax payments.

Such a change toward more open and liberalized society is long overdue. So is the new rule that will allow ``qualified" foreigners wanting to become naturalized as Korean citizens to immediately apply for the process instead of living here for five years or more.

We welcome the legal revision, not just because the move will help to enhance national competitiveness by securing global talent more easily and solve this society's rapid aging and low birthrate problems but also because it will facilitate the social integration and respect the basic rights of minorities in this society. This is also why most advanced countries have long allowed the double nationality system.

Particularly encouraging in this regard is the plan to permit marriage immigrants and ethnic Chinese here as well as Korean adoptees abroad to acquire Korean citizenship without having to rescind their original nationalities. This will undoubtedly help them to voluntarily serve as bridges linking their natural and adopted homelands. The new rule that allows Korean residents abroad 65 years or older to regain Korean nationalities easily will surely narrow the psychological distance between 6 million Koreans abroad and their spiritual home.

Somewhat worrisome is the possibility that the new, forward-looking policy might fall into what academics call ``economic instrumentalism." With the emphasis placed on obtaining talented people, social discrimination against less talented people and difficulties in presenting criteria that tell one group from the other may arise. Most immigrant workers who just want to stay in Korea with or without nationalities could be the most blatant victims of this ``ability profiling."

Opponents to this policy appear to have some ground in questioning the alleged contributions that this excellent manpower with dual nationalities will make, noting it could be a double-edged sword at best.

Inequity could also be a problem with ethnic Koreans in Japan and China, countries that still do not recognize dual citizenship, in which case Seoul will need to take more positive consideration by, for instance, relaxing regulations on their permanent residence.

As always, the key to the success of this policy will be how it harmonizes the rights and responsibilities for people with dual citizenship. It is only natural for people to expect the new law will encourage ``childbirth tours" to the United States and other advanced countries by those who can afford it. The revision seems to have taken this into account by retaining the old rule that took military service as a precondition.

Even under the new policy, however, some men born abroad can return to Korea after they become 36 years old when they are legally exempted from obligatory military services, and maintain double nationalities, which means the authorities should come up with far finer legal nets. Also ambiguous are the legal devices that block double-nationality groups from enjoying unwarranted privilege in schooling, voting and social security benefits.

All of this indicates why the authorities should regard the revision not as final but as a first step in moving toward a more open, efficient and fairer society.