Anuscheh Farahat and Kay Hailbronner cultural and political ties, the opposition parties maintained that dual nationality was a typical indication of a lack of integration and an unwillingness to accept requirements of loyalty and identity attached to a more traditional ethno-cultural concept of nationality. The German public appeared deeply divided over the issue. While a clear majority of the mass media as well as the churches and humanitarian organisations were in favour of multiculturalism and dual nationality, parts of the German population became increasingly critical about a substantial increase of dual nationals resident in Germany. Surveys showed that a majority supported easier access to German nationality, but opinions were deeply divided on t whether or not this should be achieved by introducing elements of ius soli and/or accepting dual nationality. The issue acquired prominence in several regional electoral campaigns. Against this political backdrop legal disputes arose about the impact of constitutional law and international treaties, such as the Council of Europe Convention on the Reduction of Dual Nationality of 1963. The doctrine of avoiding dual nationality had been frequently put forward as an argument based on constitutional and international law. Although the Constitutional Court stated in its decision on the voting rights of aliens that dual or multiple nationality is regarded as an evil that, if possible, should be avoided or eliminated, in the interest of states as well as in the interests of the affected citizen, the Court clearly had argued on the basis of the then-existing law, shared by the obligation of the European Convention of 1963 as well as by the traditional German concept of nationality. Supporters of a reform legislation have argued that the traditional arguments voiced against dual nationality do not outweigh the need to integrate second- and third-generation foreigners into the political system of the Federal Republic of Germany. As a more practical argument in favour of dual nationality, one may point to the increasing number of dual nationals, particularly as a result of a large number of mixed marriages and naturalisations, who during the validity of the Nationality Act of 1913 were in fact living in Germany and have not created any substantial problems in the application of international treaties or in the exercise of diplomatic protection. There is, in fact, no precise account of the exact number of dual nationals who acquired German nationality simply on the basis of descent from a German parent or by naturalisation. One argument put forward in the political debate was that almost all Germans repatriated on the basis of Article 116 of the Basic Law as expelled Germans of ethnic German origin had acquired German nationality, maintaining as a rule their previous nationality of the USSR or the 1990 successor states of the USSR. One could also point to the fact that an original provision on the registration of dual nationality had been given up, obviously for the reason that the number of dual nationals did not create substantial problems in administrative practice. Against the objection concerning the conflict of loyalties it has been argued that the concept of the German state has, similar to the developments in other European states, undergone substantial changes through the immigration of a large foreign population and the process of European integration. As a de facto immigration country, Germany could not ignore the fact that a substantial part of its population consisted of migrant workers and their children. Therefore, the argument was that the basis for German nationality can no longer be seen exclusively from the viewpoint of a nation with a cultural and historical identity primarily transferred by descent. One must note, however, that the common objection to German nationality law—particularly by foreign observers—that German nationality law is ethno-centric and based primarily upon ethnicity was an incorrect interpretation of the existing legislation even before 1990. The privileged treatment of ethnic Germans and their descendants, expelled as a result of post-war measures, does not indicate such a concept. The very basis of Article 116 of the Basic Law is the protection of ethnic Germans and their relatives, who were conceived as victims of post-war measures, although the protection aspect RSCAS/GLOBALCIT-CR 2020/5 - © 2020 Author(s) 23