If one goal of Australian citizenship law is to legally recognise the reality of blended identities, governments need to create citizenship law that allows for self-definition via crossed categorisations. Outward displays of attachment to and enjoyment of all aspects of a blended identity should not engender undue moral panic. Instead, citizenship should be considered to operate richly and dynamically in ways similar to other examples of crossed categorisations unless evidence exists of unique psychological process and universally negative social psychological consequences for citizenships lived as crossed categorisations.

This article has explained that some concerns about blended identifiers—that they will be more biased or are less attached to Australia—are not sustained by research evidence. These concerns are longstanding assumptions that have been under-researched, even by identity psychologists.^[70] The way in which citizenship law and policy creates tension between elements of blended identities is important:

These identities do not have to contradict each other or get in each other’s way because they are of different kinds: they are differently defined or situated on different levels of abstraction. One can be a member of an ethnic group as well as a superordinate national category. There is little problem as long as these identities are not defined on the same level of abstraction and in contrasting or competing terms. Depending on the situation the one or the other is relevant and becomes salient. However, different identities do sometimes get in each other’s way.^[71]

Blended identity salience is a dynamic and context-dependent process, and is not a fanciful, postmodern, theoretical concept. It is the lived reality for many citizens. The celebration of blended identity rather than the ascription of an ill-fitting singular Australian identity may be a better way to encourage psychological attachment to the many ways in which Australian citizenship can be enjoyed.