THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1937 PROBLEMS OF NATIONALITY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22733, 20 May 1937, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1937 PROBLEMS OF NATIONALITY

Instead of enjoying a respite from constitutional questions, which occupied a great deal of time and attention at the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930, the present conference finds itself preparing to face one of the most difficult, the question of nationality. It has been j raised, apparently by General Hert- | zog in the name of South Africa—rather surprisingly, in view of his statement at the opening plenary session that South Africa was satisfied with the existing Constitution of the British Commonwealth, and would not seek any change or amendment. Nothing is surer than that any thorough handling of the particular proposal he has submitted, or of any nationality proposal, will involve issues of far-reaching constitutional importance. He may not have realised this, but the committee set up to deal with constitutional questions will not have proceeded very far before he does realise it. The cabled report of his proposal is necessarily brief and nontechnical ; but it is there described as seeking to establish a common nationality for British and Dominion residents alike, namely, as subjects of the King. Reading between the lines, those interested will gather that his object is to displace the existing order—or disorder —with one in which all the Dominions will have only one nationality law, that of the Empire as a whole. However, this interpretation of his reported plan may" do it injustice, and all discussion of it must be strictly tentative until the committee has submitted its findings and the conference has made public its decisions on them.

To clarify the subject it is necessary to say that the present position is, in general, indefinite \ also, that part of it, relating to naturalisation, is chaotic. No surprise need be felt at this, since the British practice in constitutional development is to allow this to proceed ahead of orderly, legal pronouncement. Such laxity may seem undesirable, even dangerous; as a matter of fact, it provides the freedom and resilience essential -to development. There is no profit in citing against it the compact, rigid and written Constitutions of other peoples, for the British Commonwealth of Nations—the very name makes admission of the fact —is an organisation quite "of its own kind," without precedent in the world, and as an unexampled venture in constitutional government possessing'peculiar features. Indeed, the committee will find its nationality laws very intractable when an attempt is made to fit them into one complete and logical formula. Something has already been done. For instance, by British doctrine, expressed in terms used within the Empire and. recognised outside it, birth on British territory anywhere confers British nationality, associated with rights and obligations, notably the right to protection and the obligation of allegiance. Details within this broad statement comply with its simple purport, although cases arise that are not quite so simple to reduce to rule. Under the flag everywhere, then, British nationality exists. But, while this may seem to meet all requirements, national and international, the emergence of self-governing Dominions has brought with it a need for their having some individual control of citizenship within their own borders. Hence the attendant risk of legal conflict with the Homeland and with each other. At this point, where arises the possibility of a dual nationality possessed by individuals, complication begins. It has been partly overcome. British legislation has furnished a code intended to apply automatically to the whole Empke. However, useful as the intention was, the legislation has not met the natural requirements of the several Dominions, wishful to make good their autonomy by enacting for themselves laws defining citizenship. Canada began it, fully within her rights; in 1910 a wish to distinguish different classes of British subjects for immigration purposes had legal expression and a purely Canadian nationality was created. Later, for international reasons, this prerogative was extended. In 1927 South Africa followed the Canadian example, modelling her definition of Union nationals on Canadian law. Later, especially since Mr. de Valera introduced his scheme for independence, the Irish Free State has enacted laws governing Irish citizenship as distinct from British. In addition, Canada and South Africa passed legislation on the model of the British Act, to regulate British nationality in its relation to these Dominions; and Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland followed suit—without, be it noted, defining their own nationals. How to regularise and standardise, consistently and enduringly, the various practices, is not likely to prove a simple matter. Involved in it are all sorts of questions—flag usage within the scope of international law, powers of making commercial and political treaties, representation abroad by legations and consulates, obligations in reference to war, regional rights within federal boundaries, and so on, to an extent difficult to limit. The committee has been given a heavy task.