Dual nationality: Frequently asked questions

The most helpful and comprehensive information I’ve ever found about dual citizenship is at

http://www.richw.org/dualcit/

Rich Wales goes into more detail and with legal references. Although his site has not been updated since 2011, the fundamental information remains useful and clearly presented. One caveat is that it is U.S.-specific—it is very informative for Americans, less so if you’re not interested in U.S. citizenship.

Here are TDT’s answers to questions that seem to come up often about dual citizenship.

• What is dual citizenship?
Dual citizenship means holding the citizenship of two countries at the same time. I use “dual citizenship” to mean multiple citizenship—these answers are the same even if a person holds three or more citizenships at the same time.
Dual citizenship is not a special status in itself. A citizen of country A is just like any other citizen of A, and if she is also a citizen of B, then country B will treat her just like any other citizen. There is no world authority that administers dual citizenship, and no form to fill out for it.

• How does this happen?
Every country has its own rules defining who is and is not its citizen. Those rules are made independently by each country, regardless of other countries’ rules. When, for any number of reasons, the rules of country A define you as its citizen and the rules of country B also define you as its citizen, citizenships overlap, and you have both.

• Surely “where are you from?” isn’t a difficult question—a person can only be born in one place.
True, but it’s not only birth that leads to citizenship, and it’s not only where you are born that can count:
1. A person can gain citizenship by birth in several ways. Some (not most) countries define you as a citizen if you were born there (U.S.A.). Some define you as a citizen if you were born there, but with caveats (your parents have to be settled there and not just visiting, for example) (Britain). And some say that you are born with their citizenship because your parents or even grandparents were citizens, even though you were born somewhere else. In this last example, you could be born a dual citizen—if you have an American mother who’s settled in Britain, married to your British father, you have both citizenships from birth.
2. A person can also gain citizenship later in life, by naturalizing. If you immigrate to a new country and settle there, eventually you may be eligible to apply for citizenship. Unless your country of citizenship by birth has a law taking citizenship away if you become the citizen of another country (a few countries do have this rule), you are now a citizen of both. Even if your new country (the U.S. for example) requires an oath saying that you are no longer a citizen of any other countries, in practice, your old country may not recognize this oath as having any value (why would it care about U.S. citizenship laws?) In this case, you are still a citizen of both countries.

• But that’s wrong, isn’t it? I mean how can you be loyal to two different countries? What if they went to war with one another?
Whether it’s wrong or not is a personal decision and depends what loyalty means to you. It also depends on how likely the two countries are to go to war with each other, and what the practical effect would be. For some people, dual citizenship might be an advantage, for others a disadvantage. In today’s world, many people retain strong attachments to one country—family, grew up there, etc.—but actually live in another country because of their work or because their spouse is from there. They want to be full participants in the society where they actually live, without giving up their roots in a different society.
In terms of personal identity, what nationality means to you and how you identify will depend on a lot of things, not just citizenship. An Italian–American may qualify for Italian citizenship and be proud of her Italian heritage, while still being American! This is an easier concept for immigrant-based cultures, like Canada and the U.S., than it is in Old World cultures.

• Still, you’re really only one or the other, right?
Legally, each country of your citizenship will treat you only as its citizen. So if you’re both an American and a British citizen, America will regard you as American alone (like any other American citizen), and Britain will regard you as British alone. You can’t go to the British embassy in America and claim help if you violate American laws, for example. As a general rule, if you are in a country you’re a citizen of, that country’s laws take priority—it has a stronger claim on you. If you’re in a third country, again as a general rule, you identify yourself by the passport you use to enter that country.

• So it turns out I’m eligible for another citizenship. What should I do?
Find out whether holding the other citizenship (B) will cause conflicts with the country you’re a citizen of now (A). Is A one of those countries that takes away your citizenship if you acquire another? Will B require you to do something onerous, like military service in the old country? If there are no such pitfalls, decide whether the advantages of dual citizenship (see below) outweigh the possible disadvantages. Once you decide what’s right for your case, there is usually an application process before you actually acquire the other citizenship—either by naturalizing or by proving you’re entitled to it by birth.

• Right, so I’m a dual citizen now. Do I need to get a passport from my new country, and travel with it?
Not necessarily. A passport is just a travel document, not citizenship. People with no plans to travel outside the country they live in often don’t have a passport at all. On the other hand, if you have ties to another country where you might have to travel at short notice—relatives there, for instance—it’s wise to keep an up-to-date passport at all times.

• So which passport should I use?
This depends on your travel requirements. U.S. law, for example, requires anyone who is a U.S. citizen to travel to and from the U.S. with a U.S. passport (regardless of any other citizenships that person may have). So an American who lives or travels abroad really needs an American passport. If your country has a similar requirement and you plan to travel there, then get a passport from that country. Usually, a passport is also the best way to establish that you’re entitled to live and work in that country and stay indefinitely, without any visa restrictions. But not always. British citizens, for example, are not required to travel on British passports, and can get a certificate in another passport showing that they have the “right of abode” in Britain. While this certificate is more expensive than a passport, and doesn’t confer the advantages of having a European Union passport in the rest of the EU, it is much quicker and less complicated to apply for than a first-time British passport.

• What are the advantages of dual citizenship?
Dual citizenship means you have the right to live, work, and stay indefinitely in more than one country, as well as to travel freely there. Unlike a foreign visitor, a citizen has the right to enter a country, and cannot be turned away at the border. For more on traveling with two passports, see "The A to B of traveling with two passports," below.
Quite apart from travel, citizenship also entitles you to participate fully in the life of a country, and if you have ties with more than one country, dual citizenship identifies you with both. For instance, it may give you the right to vote in the country where you live, as well as in elections “back home.” Citizenship means that you belong in a country. Unlike permanent residence or other visa status, it cannot usually be taken away, even if you live outside the country for years. (There can be exceptions, if you obtained the citizenship through fraud or committed a crime in the process, for example.)

• What are the possible disadvantages?
Some countries’ rules do cause conflicts, as already mentioned. Some countries restrict security clearances in the case of people with other citizenships; dual citizenship would therefore be a disadvantage if you wanted to apply for certain jobs. And, if you try for high office, you could have a political problem if your opponents tried to characterize you as disloyal (politicians not being constrained by the facts). Michaëlle Jean, the former Governor General of Canada, was criticized for being a dual citizen of Canada and France; her political opponents portrayed her French citizenship unfavorably, and eventually, she renounced it. (Most countries have a formal procedure for renouncing citizenship, rather than your automatically losing it. This is true for the U.S.—it is actually quite difficult for someone born with American citizenship to lose it, even if he wanted to.)
Also, be aware that obligations of one citizenship don’t go away just because you acquire another. The U.S. infamously requires its citizens to file tax forms every year, no matter what other citizenships they have or how long they’ve lived outside the U.S.

• I still don't get it. I get that some people may identify with two nationalities, but is there any justification for claiming a second citizenship, just because you are entitled to it?
This comes up in the media, often in regard to athletes who compete for a country other than the one they were born in. Sometimes this is politically dubious. Americans, for example, are happy to welcome athletes who defected from former communist bloc nations, but less happy to see athletes from the U.S. now competing for Russia.
However, there are circumstances where a second nationality, even if you wouldn’t otherwise claim it, can be of immense practical help. Suppose you lived in South Africa under apartheid, and because of ancestry, you were entitled to claim Irish citizenship. You might take the chance to start a new life in Ireland, rather than live under a system you found intolerable—even though you were still a proud South African. Or, although you are a proud Canadian, you have a British spouse, and are living together in Britain. In order to come and go without being subject to British immigration controls, you might choose to claim citizenship once entitled to it, without ever identifying as British.

These decisions don’t always make sense to others or to the wider public, but for personal reasons, they do. Wanting to live under a different type of government, or being married to a citizen, are convincing reasons to desire nationality. Those who disagree have perhaps always taken their own system for granted, or never fallen in love with a foreigner.

Enjoy your citizenship(s), whatever it or they may be. Enjoy your travels.

The A to B of traveling with two passports

My 10-step guide to traveling with two passports shows a very simple pattern, actually. It looks like a pattern of poetic meter:

ABA BAB

Even simpler—when you look at it it just alternates:

AB AB AB

It’s simple enough in my first example, where you’re traveling from the country of one of your citizenships to the other. You use passport A to enter and exit country A, and passport B to enter and exit country B.

In a moment, I’ll give an example of how this same pattern works in any combination of countries, even when your passports aren’t from either. But first, what are the advantages of traveling with two passports? Even if you’re entitled to more than one, what’s the advantage of paying to keep both up to date?

Some practical advantages are:

·       Your passport entitles you to live and work in a country and to stay as long as you want. Obviously, this is true of the country the passport is from—if you’re an Irish citizen, you can live and work in Ireland, and don’t need a visa or any plans to depart. But an Irish passport also entitles you to live and work in the United Kingdom, without any restrictions—exactly as if you were a British citizen. Furthermore, Ireland is part of the European Union, so any EU country will let you live there as well.

·       Even if you don’t want to stay in a country indefinitely, it’s usually a lot simpler just to enter if you have a passport from that country (or, in this example, an EU passport). You can breeze through the “fast lane,” answer minimal questions (or none at all), and get no stamp restricting your stay. If your plans change and you wish to stay longer, so what? You haven’t promised anyone at the border to leave by a certain date—you don’t have to.

·       In any “third” country, you can pick whichever passport gives you the least hassle. Maybe that country requires visas from American citizens, but not for EU citizens (Brazil is an example of this). Or maybe there are fees to pay on arrival, but they’re less for Europeans than for Americans. Show that Irish passport and you can save money and time.

·       Speaking of visas, in many countries and situations, they’re a pain to get. You have to mail your passport off to some embassy, and as well as pay a fee, wait while they process your visa. If you have another passport you’re free to travel in the meanwhile, rather than be held hostage by some third country’s embassy.

I used “hostage” and “embassy” there together as a deliberate exaggeration; I’m obviously not talking about a situation such as the U.S. embassy workers in Iran were in in 1979. If you saw the movie Argo, you know that the movies portray dual passport usage in a very different way. Forged passports (or in this case, genuine Canadian passports that were deliberately issued to false identities for the Americans) are used in daredevil operations, either to get away with a crime, or to get away from bad guys like the Iranian hostage takers.

But this is not the movies, and your passport is a travel document, nothing more. It is not your identity; you are still one person, with a name and a date of birth, no matter how many passports you legitimately hold. You can’t use a second passport to be a different person. Some people think they can visit a country on passport A, stay the maximum length of time, then revisit on passport B as if they were someone else. Don’t try this.

American you and Irish you are still the same person. Besides, once you’re in a country as an American, you need to stick with that until you’re out of that country (always enter and exit on the same passport, remember?) Don’t leave the airport and start showing your other passport as identification. Especially, you don’t want to do this in a country of which you’re actually a citizen; never identify yourself as Irish to American officials, or as American to Irish officials.*

But—let’s say you’re a U.S. citizen with permanent residence in Canada, and you want to visit Brazil. This is where your two passports will really come in handy even though you aren’t a citizen of either Canada or Brazil. In this example, the first passport you’ll use will be your Irish (A), because that’s what you’ll use to get into Brazil visa-free. Your U.S. passport (B) is what you use in Canada, because that’s what your Canadian resident visa is in.

A         Book your flight and check in at the airport with your Irish passport.

B         Canada doesn’t have exit immigration controls, but if it did, you would always show your U.S. passport. You’re in Canada as a U.S. citizen with permanent residence, so don’t confuse anyone by showing your other passport—it’s irrelevant in Canada.

A         Board your plane and arrive at Brazilian immigration with your Irish passport. You don’t have to get a visa (or pay a fee). Enjoy your visit to Brazil!

B         When you check in for your flight home to Canada, use your U.S. passport. That’s what the Canadians expect to see, and since you don’t have an onward flight out of Canada, the airline needs to know you’ll be let into Canada indefinitely. So they want the passport associated with your Canadian residence visa.

A         At Brazilian exit immigration, show your Irish passport again. That’s what you entered Brazil on.

B         Arrive back in Canada and show Canadian immigration authorities your U.S. passport and its associated Canadian visa. Welcome home.

Traveling with two passports is simple, but dual nationality can also make life more complicated. It’s not for getting away with anything (except in the movies). *But, that’s a subject for another day.

Top 10: How to travel with two passports

Even before I had dual citizenship, The Discreet Traveler was interested in the practical issues of having two passports. Can you carry both on one trip? Is it legit to do the ol’ “switcheroo” between boarding a plane in one country and turning up at immigration in another? Assuming it is, how do dual passport holders know which to use when?

Based on the number of anonymous queries and websites, it seems other people are interested too. In case you’re one of them, here’s TDT’s 10-step guide for traveling with two passports. I am using the fictional example of a U.S. and British dual passport holder, since that’s a common combination. (And it doesn’t apply to me, so as always, Your Mileage May Vary.)

1.      Be legally entitled to hold both passports. Yes, this sounds like a given, but this entire post assumes that you are a dual citizen and have the right to each passport. Dual nationality is a whole area of interest in itself and TDT will no doubt write more about that someday soon.

2.      Know any particular rules that apply to your country(ies) of citizenship. The steps below will work for most people with most combinations of passports, but there are a few special rules that specific countries have. The U.S., for example, doesn’t have exit immigration like most countries do, but does require its citizens to use their U.S. passports both coming and going.* A few countries (not Britain or the U.S.) forbid their citizens to have another country’s citizenship and you could be in trouble if you travel there. Know the rules before you travel--as you would for any trip.

3.      No matter how many passports you hold, they should all identify you as the same person—name, date of birth, etc. This also sounds obvious but in another life, I’ve been amazed by how often people’s identification (including passports) doesn’t match. They fill out their middle name, or their hyphenated last name, on a form and that doesn’t match their ID. I’ve even had women express surprise that their maiden name was still on something, when they’d never legally changed to their married name! Airlines, and immigration authorities, won’t accept this. Know what your name is and stick with it—if you need to make a legal name change or update your documents, do it between trips.

4.      Always enter and exit any country in the world with the same passport. If you're going to country A, show immigration passport A going in and coming out. If you visit country C and you show immigration there passport B (because it has visa advantages, for example), show passport B to immigration again when you leave. This is the simplest and yet most important rule.

We now move to your first trip with two passports. In our example, you are traveling from country B (Britain) to country A (America, for simplicity).

5.      When you book your flight, you need to pick one passport and enter those details. Online travel booking can only cope with one passport. That doesn’t mean you can’t travel using both, but you should—and this is the point of using two passports—use the one that will make your life easiest. You'll be showing your American passport in America, both when you enter and when you leave, so you should enter the details from your American passport. Later when you check in, use the passport that the airline wants to see. The airline needs to know that they can transport you to your destination, country A, and not get fined for bringing someone who can’t get in. So show your American passport. If you showed your British passport, they would look for an ESTA (visa waiver), which British citizens are required to have, but you don't have it or need it. You're an American citizen. A

6.      If, as in most countries, you are stopped at exit immigration (departing Britain), use the passport that immigration wants to see. British immigration wants to know that you have been in Britain legally, not where you are going. So show your British passport. If you showed your American passport, they would look for a stamp or visa or ask you how long you've been visiting Britain, but you don’t have to answer those questions or abide by any limits. You're a British citizen. B

7.      When you arrive in the U.S.A., you use the passport, again, that immigration wants to see. This time it’s U.S. immigration, and they want to know that you are OK to enter the U.S. So show your American passport. If you showed your British passport, they would again look for an ESTA or visa waiver, but you have no such requirement or limit to your stay. You're American. A

The return trip is basically the same steps in reverse.

8.      Checking in for your departing flight back to Britain, use the passport the airline wants to see. This might mean both. *U.S. citizens are supposed to exit (and enter) the U.S. on U.S. passports, and that’s also the information you've entered in the passenger record (Advance Passenger Information or API, which airlines transmit when they carry passengers internationally). So show your American passport, but be prepared to show the British passport as well, in case the airline needs to know that they can transport you to your destination, country B. See a pattern here? Unlike in other countries, check-in departing the U.S. doubles as exit immigration—hence, both passports. A, B

9.      When you arrive in Britain, use the passport that immigration wants to see. British immigration wants to know that you are OK to enter Britain; they don’t care what passport you used with the airline or earlier on your trip. A British passport shows that you have the right to enter, and don't need a visa like American visitors get. You're a British citizen. B

10.   Finally, relax. If an airline or immigration official asks something that can only be answered by your other passport, just show it. Sometimes people worry that immigration will be looking for a stamp from wherever they’ve traveled (unlikely; many places you don’t even get a stamp anymore) or that they’ll arrive somewhere and present a passport that doesn’t match their API on the passenger record. But this is done every day. Show the passport that will make your life easiest. That means the one that shows you are a citizen of that country, or the one that doesn’t require you to pay for a visa for that country, or whatever. British passports, for example, let you go in the “fast lane” in any European Union country. Some countries require visas for U.S. citizens but not for Europeans. Canadian passport holders don't need an ESTA to enter the U.S.A. Etc.

It is no big deal, and you are not doing anything shady. You’re carrying two passports, both of which you are perfectly entitled to, and they both show you are the same person.

Questions? Hypothetical itineraries? Write them in the comments!

UPDATE: I've received several related questions on this post and thought I'd give some general advice:
Sometimes, people want to know if they can use their multiple passports to do something that they could not normally get away with. For example, you've stayed the maximum amount of time allowed in a country, and you want to leave and re-enter the country using a different passport. Or, you have some kind of a ban from another country (e.g. from overstaying on your last visit) so you want to try entering with your other passport.

I don't recommend this. I cannot say for certain that the two will link up but with the same name and date of birth, it's quite likely that they will. Remember that you are still always one person and the rules apply to you, not to your passport. Moreover if you get "caught" and immigration authorities think you have lied to them, it is likely to go worse for you.

Suppose you make a mistake like overstaying. It is better to fix the situation, and then try to travel. Or take the situation of someone who was denied entry to the US (not for a criminal reason; the officer didn't think he had sufficient proof of funds for his trip, and he was allowed to reenter the US the next day). If asked to fill out a US visa application in the future, this person must answer "Yes" when asked if he was ever denied entry before. If he does not answer this truthfully, and later on immigration officials discover that he's lied, he could face a longterm ban or other consequences much worse than the initial situation.

My rule is, be honest. That doesn't mean volunteering information not asked for, which only wastes officials' time. But the benefit of a second passport is that the passport may come with certain privileges--like an unrestricted stay or a lower visa fee. It doesn't change the rules that apply to one person. So don't try using a second passport to "trick" a country into letting you in when it wouldn't otherwise. Answer questions truthfully and if you make a mistake, get it fixed, rather than trying to circumvent the system.

Safe travels!

Melissa said...

Thanks for this very useful post! I am a Canadian citizen who VERY recently got American citizenship and am getting my brand new US passport tomorrow. I'm going to Brazil at the end of the month and have a Brazilian visa for my Canadian passport, but due to tight timeline, won't be able to get a Brazilian visa in my American passport in time. I assume I can still travel using my two passports? Please let me know if this sounds right:

1. Check in with airline with Canadian passport including Brazil visa
2. There's no exit check at JFK, so I would fly to Brazil and clear immigration with my Canadian passport
3. When I leave Brazil, I check in with airline with my US passport and exit Brazilian immigration with my Canadian passport
4. When I return to the US, use my brand new US passport and should have no trouble despite fact that it's completely blank??

Just want to be 100% sure - have been very stressed about not having a Brazilian visa in my American passport but based on your post, my Canadian passport with visa + US passport should be fine, correct? Thank you SO MUCH!

June 3, 2014 at 11:23:00 PM EST

J. E. Knowles said...

Thank you for reading, Melissa! I hope my comment is not too late to help you for your trip.
I take it you live in the US and are traveling from there? If so, the steps you describe are exactly right.
Since you have two passports, either is fine for the Brazil visa, so there is no problem traveling on your Canadian.
You have to enter the US using your new US passport, since you are now a US citizen. There should be no issue with a brand new, unstamped passport, as there are all kinds of reasons you might not have stamps. I would be very surprised if US officials asked about this.
They will know that you've traveled from Brazil, because your plane came from there (and you'll declare this on the US Customs form). If by any chance they do ask, just explain that you are also a citizen of Canada and have a Canadian passport. You are perfectly entitled to travel on it anywhere except the US.
Enjoy your trip!

June 16, 2014 at 8:57:00 AM EST

H Fazzari said...

I have a Dutch and Moroccan Passport. I have overstayed my stay in Brazil and will be paying a fine when I go back to Brazil. My ticket from Brazil to Europe was booked on my Dutch passport. Ill be going back to Brazil from Europe and wanted to know if there will be any questions asked when trying to enter Brazil with my Moroccan Passport. (I will still have a fine to pay, but its registered on my Dutch Passport) Flight booked was Brazil-Europe and going back from Europe to Brazil and has been booked on my Dutch passport. It’s a round trip booked while I was in Brazil and I don’t was to loose the flight back to Brasil. Should I change my passport number with the airline to my other passport?

Hope I am clear in my story.

October 28, 2014 at 1:50:00 PM EST

vk said...

Hi, i am wrongly entering Heathrow using my Canada passport. May i know whether i can exit from Heathrow by my Canada passport to Dublin and then enter again into Heathrow by using my M'sia passport as i have a student visa on my M'sia passport.

February 11, 2015 at 3:44:00 PM EST

vk said...

Hi, i am wrongly entering Heathrow using my Canada passport. May i know whether i can exit from Heathrow by my Canada passport to Dublin and then enter again into Heathrow by using my M'sia passport as i have a student visa on my M'sia passport.

February 11, 2015 at 3:44:00 PM EST

J. E. Knowles said...

H Fazzari, I do not think you can use a different passport just to get out of paying a fine, if that's what you are asking. But as far as what passport the airline has, that in itself should not be a problem. When you check in at the airport, just give the airline agent the passport you will enter your destination country with. The airline can then update your information to that passport.

February 27, 2015 at 10:47:00 AM EST

J. E. Knowles said...

vk, I think you are saying that you entered the UK using your Canadian passport, but you should have used your Malaysian passport which has your student visa in it. What kind of stamp did you get on your Canadian passport? A visitor visa?

You can travel to Ireland with your Canadian passport, but the problem is that flights from Ireland to the UK are treated like internal flights, so there is no UK passport control. So you still wouldn't get stamped. You are better off explaining to the UK authorities that you got the wrong passport stamped.

February 27, 2015 at 10:49:00 AM EST

Nicholas Jones said...

I'm travelling to Vietnam from Bangkok with 2 passports. I'm in Bangkok on my South African passport which is nearly full and want to enter Vietnam with my German passport to save space in my SA passport until the new one is received.

Do you think it will be a problem entering Vietnam with my German passport which contains no stamps from previous travels as I got it issued in Bangkok?

Thanks for the helpful article.

Regards,

Nick

April 10, 2015 at 12:37:00 AM EST

J. E. Knowles said...

Thanks for reading, Nick.

I don't think it will be any problem to enter Vietnam on your German passport. The important thing is to enter and leave any one country with the same passport. So you leave Thailand on your S. African passport (which you entered with), but show the German one throughout Vietnam.

Just make sure any visa you need to visit a country is in the correct passport, and you should be fine. It is not a problem to have a new passport without stamps in it. It's unlikely anyone will want to see stamps, but if they ask, just show them your other passport.

April 15, 2015 at 6:39:00 AM EST

Arizona

The Discreet Traveler was in Phoenix just a few weeks ago. Indeed, we spend more time (and money) in Arizona than any other American state. Rather improbably, all three of the children in my family met our partners in Arizona; T. and I first met in person in Phoenix, and my brother and sister both live there, with my two sisters-in-law. Apparently, this is a problem for some other Arizonans.

I admit to having been blindsided by the Arizona state legislature's passage of Senate Bill 1062. In these days of social media and instant news updates, this is the first time I remember being so completely surprised by such an anti-gay development. The day the legislation was passed, the usual e-mails arrived in my in box from gay rights campaigners, but there was no mention of Arizona. It was self-congratulatory "look at all the progress we've made on marriage" blah blah blah, along with a small footnote about the anti-gay bill in Kansas, which didn't pass. Where was everybody while SB1062 was being debated in Phoenix? Legislation is a matter of public record; this should not have been hidden under a bushel, in the New Testament metaphor.

I'm bringing the New Testament into this because we are told that this bill is anti-discrimination. Those who voted for it say that it is the only way to protect sincerely believing religious people from being discriminated against, by gay people who want to pay them for their services. As absurd as this sounds, I'm trying to address this on its own terms: What makes this a bad piece of legislation for everyone, quite apart from its targeting of gay people?

The religion that is being protected here is, of course, Christian. And one particular strand of Christian belief--not all Christian views, let alone the views of all Christians. This is important:

"According to a poll by Third Way and the Human Rights Campaign 69 percent of Americans don’t think a business owner should be allowed to refuse to provide products or services to an individual because that person is gay or lesbian, compared to an incredibly small 15% that do. And when asked about small business owners in particular, a full 68% of Americans don’t think they should be able to refuse service to gays or lesbians, regardless of their religious beliefs. This supermajority included 55% of Republicans, 75% of Independents, 67% of people without college degrees, and 68% of Christians"* (emphasis mine).

As others have pointed out, there is nothing in the law that wouldn't equally protect a Muslim taxi driver from refusing to accept a woman passenger on her own, for example, but that is not the "sincere belief" we are talking about. We are talking about the sincere belief that homosexuality, and same-sex coupledom, is wrong.

However cynical I suspect the lawmakers of being, let's not underplay the fact that this is a sincere belief. Many Americans hold it, and the right-wing talk show circus has convinced them that they are being persecuted by us. This is a crucial understanding. Unlike in the old days of black-white segregation, everyone now agrees that discrimination is unacceptable. What the supposed beneficiaries of this legislation believe is that they are the ones discriminated against, rather than LGBT people.

Now, this is interesting because it is the businesses of Arizona who are being protected by SB1062--not the customers. If a lesbian customer goes to a florist, say, and discovers that the florists are uncomfortable providing flowers for her same-sex wedding, what is she going to do? (Though to be sure, a homophobic florist is hard to imagine.) She will take her business and spend her money somewhere else. Those of us who were gay in twentieth-century America have always done this. We assumed that people were going to have a problem with our sexuality, and we sought out gay or gay-friendly businesses who were the exception. Remember the maxim of TDT’s last post: Tolerance of sexual difference is always the exception. It has never been the rule.

Increasingly though, in the past two decades, it has become the rule among American businesses. After all, we have money to spend, and more and more Americans agree that our sexuality is, well, our own business. The Republican party is always saying that it is the party of business in the U.S., that it’s there to look after the interests of business. Why do businesses need protecting from the dollars of gay Americans and Americans who think there is nothing wrong with gay people?

If a business consistently turns down customers because it doesn’t like dealing with them, that business is in trouble. But that’s not discrimination, any more than a top 40 radio station is “discriminating”against Peter, Paul and Mary by not playing folk music. Good business means moving with the times, and trying to get as large a share of the customer base as possible. If a person’s sincere belief is that they should only serve some people, may I suggest that s/he is not going to be a very successful businessperson.

I hope that Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, vetoes this bill. "I think anybody that owns a business can choose who they work with or who they don't work with," she told CNN in Washington on Friday. "But I don't know that it needs to be statutory. In my life and in my businesses, if I don't want to do business or if I don't want to deal with a particular company or person or whatever, I'm not interested. That's America. That's freedom."

If Governor Brewer does not veto SB1062, there is little doubt that it will fail in court eventually, because it violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution—equal protection under the law. What hasn’t been said enough is that it also violates the First Amendment, by privileging one religion (in fact one strand of that religion) over others and attempting to establish that religion by the state.

The U.S.A. was founded by people who distrusted the establishment of religion. Christianity, and other faiths, have flourished in America in large part because their expression is free, and to the extent that people of different faiths can still work and do business with one another. Legislating in the name of the Christian religion is bad for business, and it is bad for Christianity.

*http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/hrc-calls-on-az-gov.-jan-brewer-to-veto-license-to-discriminate-law

Rain on your wedding day

One of the many pleasures of reading Alison Bechdel's epic cartoon series, Dykes to Watch Out For, was the little details lovingly drawn into the pictures. For example, the newspaper headlines she penned in to the strip characters' local newspaper, The Distress. Not long after Osama bin Laden had become a household name, Bechdel drew the headline "They hate us! They really hate us!" Presumably she was also alluding to Sally Field's embarrassing Oscar speech, but the message hit home. Americans had been suddenly, brutally reminded that there are people who really hate us, and what are we going to do about it?

You will be relieved to know that this post is not about Osama bin Laden, but rather, the people sometimes hyperbolically characterized as an "American Taliban." Please note that I regard "Taliban" as an unacceptable exaggeration. No American lawmaker, as far as I know, has yet suggested stoning homosexuals to death, but they are after us with their interpretation of the Bible, and we've all read Leviticus, right? If you want it, it's in there.

"Anti-gay bills" might make you think of Russia or Uganda, but I am talking about Kansas and Tennessee. To recap, the bill passed by the Kansas House, HB 2453, states that any person or religious entity with sincerely held religious beliefs would be able, without fear of legal consequences, to refuse to provide service to any same-sex couple or treat their marriage (or civil union) as valid.* The Tennesssee bill, HB 600/SB 632, "would bar local governments from instituting anti-discrimination policies that are stricter than the ones in force at the state level. Under state law, it is not illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation."**

Ever since "gay marriage" started being mooted as a real legal possibility in North America, I have shared many queer activists' skepticism about it. I absolutely support a person's freedom to marry, whether that person is Mildred Loving or you; and I am very happy for the many couples who are finally getting married, some after being partners for decades. What I've been skeptical about is the (often implied) belief that now that we are getting marriage, that will be it--there is no more room for discrimination. In Canada, there is some evidence that it has broadly worked out that way, legally if not in fact. In the U.S. it is a dangerous falsehood.

The most life-altering legal change in the past year, as I see it, has been the Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA. Among other things, this enables Americans for the very first time to sponsor their spouses of other nationalities to come to the U.S. It was not, however, necessary to make marriage central to this legal change. Other countries, like Canada and Great Britain, accept for immigration purposes partnerships that are not actually called marriage. As I have argued before, marriage is essential in the U.S. gay rights advance because it is so important in the U.S. generally.

With delight, we note that in more and more states, marriage is being won. While we are celebrating this, though, theocrats in the state legislatures are thrusting new segregation upon us. We know, but perhaps do not pay enough attention to the fact, that job discrimination and bullying of kids are still huge problems for LGBT Americans. Marriage does not help those people. The new wave of anti-gay laws will permit anyone to turn away same-sex couples if they do not religiously approve of us. It is taking us backwards.

Who are these people, who would bring back the twentieth century to gay Americans who have already survived it? Certainly not all, or even most, straight people, or Christians, let alone the majority of Americans. But those who do support these measures are powerful, and they can be found in many areas of public life. "The bill would apply to government employees, raising fears that even police officers could refuse to come to the assistance of gay couples, pleading religious differences."* Suddenly, it does not seem so far-fetched that such laws could cost gay people their lives. What do you think used to happen, and still does in places where we don't have the protection of the law?

I don't want to dampen happy couples' enthusiasm--I completely understand why couples in California and many other states started getting married as soon as they had the chance. But while all this was going on, the people who hate us--who really hate us--have been busy.

We'd better get busy ourselves. Wherever you live in the world, remember this: Tolerance of sexual difference is always the exception. It has never been the rule.


*http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/14/kansas-republican-lawmakers-criticise-anti-gay-marriage-bill

**http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/tennessee-anti-gay-bill-chamber-commerce-business_n_865581.html

Days 42-50: Adelaide to London via Sydney, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.

Day 42 (over the International Date Line) was the Australia to America leg of our around-the-world journey, and Days 49-50 comprise America to England. We have circumnavigated the globe. In between we spent a week in Phoenix, and this gave me an opportunity not only to readjust to the northern hemisphere in not bad weather, but to consider. Could I live again in the country of my birth?

It felt inexpensive, especially after Australia, but that can be deceptive. There's the whole health care thing that we don't have to worry about in other countries, and I don't really know about the new alternatives. I haven't had any reason to research them. Then there's the gun shop around the corner from where my baby niece lives.

Arizona might not be the best example; it has pretty outdated laws, gay-wise, and not my favorite culture. Standing in line at the post office, I saw a gift display with lots of cutesy signs you can hang in or around your house. About half of these pictured and/or referred to firearms being used to shoot trespassers. To be fair, I didn't actually see any hanging around anyone's home.

Getting to America via the Pacific was a new one for me. The longest flight of our trip, Sydney to Los Angeles, went straight across the ocean, and took about 13 hours. Luckily it wasn't a full flight so we each had extra seats to stretch out in. I realized, as I watched the flight path, how little I knew of the geography of the South Pacific. I'd heard of some of the islands because my grandfathers were here during the Second World War. At one point we passed Christmas Island and the Ella Fitzgerald song of that name came into my head. Hers was the only carol we listened to over Christmas that actually seemed seasonal!

Because it was still Day 42, we arrived in LA "before" we'd even left Adelaide, never mind Sydney. It sure didn't feel like it, though. Happily, we had plenty of time for our connections--not a simple process as we first had to clear exit immigration in Australia, then entry into the United States in LA before starting all over again at another airline for our domestic connection. (We went through security three times on this trip--I am telling you, our last plane was safe from jam, A1 sauce, and my bag of change that a sick Transportation Safety Administration employee thought "looked like a hand grenade.")

There was not a long line to enter the U.S. (for citizens), and the Customs and Border Protection guy was incredibly chilled. "You guys family?" "We're a couple." "That works." Imagine if every American had such a laissez-faire attitude.

Pancakes. Strangers chatting to you and it seems normal. The whole "Hi, how are you?" routine with an employee before you can get anything done. Actually the last of these was very Australian too; I got quite used to it over six weeks, and am really going to miss it back here in the good old United Kingdom.

Somewhere by the time of our return flight to London, we had ceased to be security risks because we were mysteriously waved through "TSA Pre-check." This means not having to remove our shoes (something you don't have to do anywhere but U.S. or U.S.-bound flights in the first place). I'd also put so many miles on my frequent flyer card that I've become "Gold" and got extra leg room seats without asking for them. I never thought it would make any difference what class, as we're all on the same plane, but on a nine-hour flight little comforts make a difference.

I remember being on a street in Melbourne and seeing a rugby pub advertising the Six Nations. The Six Nations is the big rugby competition among England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, and Italy that must be starting right about now. It is funny to think of rugby fans half a world away watching Twickenham on TV, while we're here bemoaning the traffic.

So for now, so long, America. I miss sheets and blankets (rather than duvets), and washcloths as well as towels. I miss hearing Patty and Paddy pronounced exactly the same. I miss reports about how many degrees Fahrenheit it is going to be at the Super Bowl. Mostly, I miss family, as again it's family and friends that make a place worth going back to.

Days 39-41: Adelaide, South Australia

South Australia is the fifth and last state we visited in Australia. I was predisposed to like South Australia, because whenever we mentioned that this was the climax of our trip, we got the same question: “Why?” No one thought much of our plan to visit Adelaide. When we said we have friends there, most people (but not all) stopped their disparaging remarks. They also kept saying that Adelaide is a city of churches, as if this is a bad thing.  As I originate from a part of the States (the South) that is unpopular with many people, and that they don’t want to visit having never been there, I could imagine how a South Australian might feel.

Here are some facts I’d be proud of, if I were from South Australia: The first British settlement (at what is now Glenelg) was free, not convict—unique in Australia. Of course, someone was already there: the Kaurna. Despite a fraught history, South Australia was the first state to “grant” Aboriginal people title to their land. It was one of the first places in the world where women could vote, and they could stand for parliament as early as 1894. South Australia was also the first state in Australia to outlaw racial and gender discrimination, and to decriminalize homosexuality.

I walked along Rundle Street and along pedestrianized Rundle Mall, looking through at the beautiful old arcades running between there and Grenfell Street. In the evening we made our way over to Hindley Street, the red-light district. Right in the middle of Thai massage parlors and people smoking water pipes is Jerusalem Sheshkebab House, a hole in the wall serving hummus, falafel, baklava and Jerusalem coffee. It is the sort of place that has been there forever and doesn’t charge very much. The music was kind of like a Middle Eastern Betty Boop cartoon, as T. pointed out. You cannot go wrong with pictures of Jerusalem on the wall and a dive atmosphere—and shesh kebabs, of course.

At Glenelg, there’s a Bay Discovery Centre where you can learn about the Kaurna people and the early history of British settlement. There was also, more cheerily, beach volleyball. We had breakfast at “Australia’s best café” (they do love to claim things like this). Bushwalking hadn’t seemed like the best idea what with all the smoke and fires we’d been hearing about, so we opted for another day on the beach. After lunch in Chinatown and a walk around the Central Market. Victoria Square was all given over to a bicycle expo because the Tour Down Under was going on—the tram stopped for some of the cyclists to go through.

And so I swam in yet another ocean—the Southern Ocean (actually Gulf St. Vincent, but that’s what it empties into). Nothing between me and the South Pole, but it sure didn’t feel as cold as the Tasman Sea! Had the most delicious pasta arrabiata at Pellegrini’s Pizzeria Café and, of course, met up with said friends, some of whom I actually met through a church, for goodness’s sake. More accurately, through a wine tour that was raising money for a new church organ, but who’s counting?

That wine tour was also in January but in Canada, through the snowy Niagara ice wine region. What a contrast with the Barossa Valley in South Australia, where we spent our last day. Founded by Germans fleeing religious persecution (hence all the churches), towns like Tanunda held a lot of charm. We got to taste a lot of wines (or ports, in T’s case), most notably at an 1850s cellar door in an old stable that made sparkling shiraz. I think that may be a uniquely Australian wine. We had a lovely tasting lunch overlooking one vineyard, then whiled away the afternoon on the deck overlooking another. That was a more structured tasting, where I unfortunately found that the $100 bottle was to my taste. Bearing in mind this is Australia, where $100 doesn’t go very far!

One last walk along the sand, one last dip of feet into the Southern Ocean, one final barbecue. A wonderful way to finish our stay in Adelaide and Australia in general—with friends.

So what have I learned from my trip (three-quarters of the way so far) around the world? First, that we overpacked. The Discreet Traveler used to be pretty good about this—I’ve backpacked, literally, around Ireland and Germany in my time—but that adage about “pack what you think you’ll need, then take half of that” really is true. Seriously. If you think you might read two books, pack one and exchange it for another one later. Wear the same shirt or find more opportunities to do laundry. Believe me, it will work out. It is literally true that you only need half.

Australia is amazing. It has the oldest history on earth—the Australian Aborigines have lived there for fifty thousand years (or always, depending on how you tell history). The waters off Australia have amazing species like the manatee-like dugong and six of the world’s seven species of sea turtle, all endangered. Australia is very far away from pretty much everywhere else, and it is expensive, but it is also a very friendly country. And because Australians travel all over the world, you are never far from a friendly Australian. South Australia was in fact a great way to cap off our visit, because what makes a city, state, or country is not its politics or geography or climate. It’s the presence of friends.