NATIONALITY PROBLEMS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23213, 10 June 1937, Page 10

NATIONALITY PROBLEMS

The report of the Constitutional Committee of the Imperial Conference on the nationality issue seems to suggest a compromise on, rather than a solution of, a very involved issue. General Hertzog, on behalf of South Africa, introduced the subject at an early stage of the Conference proceedings by seeking to establish a common nationality for British and dominion residents, as equal subjects under the Crown. Insofar as the brief cabled summary of the Committee's findings is intelligible, the report appears to begin by recognising the absolute political freedom of the dominions, by virtue of which it must be within the competence of each member of the British Commonwealth to determine who shall constitute its own citizens. Canada, South Africa and the Irish Free State have respectively defined national status in their own way. Canadian action was taken, years before either of the other countries, with the principal object of clarifying citizenship for immigration purposes, to which end legal recognition was given to a purely Canadian nationality. In 1927 the Canadian example was followed by South Africa. In the Irish Free State a peculiar position has developed as the result of an attempt to abolish entirely British national status for Free State citizens. The intention of the legislation was to deprive Irish citizens, so-called, of their British nationality whether or not they resided in the Free State, but the British interpretation of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act is that an Irish citizen must be recognised as a British national as soon as he leaves Free State territory.

Genera] Hertzog, in seeking some clarification of the involved problem of nationality that has arisen out of separate action taken by self-governing units of the Commonwealth, was doubtless influenced by special political considerations, for the extreme Nationalist elements in the Union have long argued that recognition of British nationality is incompatible with the Union's independent status. A critic of his proposal, writing in the National Review, asserts that its object was to take one further step towards demonstrating in practice the sovereign international independence of the Union. His earlier submissions to the Conference appeared to rely on the feasibility of his plan that there should be one nationality within the Union, defined by Union law, and that there should exist at the same time a "common status" between the Union and the British nationalities. The answer of British constitutional authorities was that the proposal was legally untenable, first and foremost because any dominion not wishing its nationals to remain British nationals could not expect the recognised privileges of British citizenship to be extended to them —an alternative that would impose on the particular dominion the duty of establishing its own diplomatic services abroad and of safeguarding the interests of its nationals in other countries. New Zealand and Australia have never been inclined to follow the leads given by Canada and South Africa, and are not disposed to take steps to define their own nationals. The summary of the Committee's report does not indicate that proposals for the standardisation of practice have actually been drafted. It is slated, however, that conclusions satisfactory to all of the dominions have been reached, and these may be supposed at least to reduce the risk of legal conflict with the Imperial Government or with each other, since it has been agreed that any dominion wishing to adopt classes or categories of nationals under its own citizenship shall do so after consultation and co-ooera-tion with other members of the British Commonwealth.