Talk:Multiple citizenship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] World record

Any knowledge of who holds the most number of effective nationalities? What would be the burocratically feasible limit of nationalities? If someone can solve this questions and proof they are solved... They would make a nice addendum to this page... Undead Herle King (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] REMOVAL

I removed the following dubious assertion:

Some, if not all, unitary states permit only one citizenship. Other states (e.g. federal nations) permit dual or multiple citizenship.

The Republic of Ireland is a unitary state permitting dual citizenship; Germany is Federal republic not permitting it. Joestynes

Germany does allow dual citizenship in certain circumstances. EG a child born in the US to German parents will usually have dual US/German citizenship. And Germans wishing to naturalise elsewhere can keep German citizenship provided they get permission to do so in advance. JAJ 00:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Whilt what JAJ says is undoubtedly true, that doesn't negate the comment made above about the fact that the assertion in the article about unitary states and federal states being dubious. ---

Some of this page seemse to be a copyright infringement from Multiple citizenship. That site explicitly says it's for Non Commercial use, which I think excludes its being here unless the copyright owner says otherwise. Could someone else please do what you're meant to? Felix the Cassowary 11:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--- I deleted some information that I felt was irrelevant and redundant, namely the subjective statements about restrictive citizenship policies in Australia. Since the 2002 overhaul, Australia explicitly allows and recognizes plural citizenship. Also the middle section appears lifted and one paragraph was a near copy of another paragraph. I hope I don't offend the original author in my edits. I think this article needs furthur clean up. Also, there should be sources to the "Incidence" section. K 14:30 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that in various circumstances, dual/multiple citizenship was perfectly legal and accepted under Australian law even before the 2002 overhaul referred to above, so these subjective statements about restrictive citizenship policies in Australia are well removed. 2 April 2006

[edit] Greece

According to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_nationality_law Greece has dual citizenship. The map needs to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.243.172 (talk • contribs)

Please, change the first map. Greece is wrongly painted red, since the law has been changed and dual citizenship is permitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.243.172 (talk • contribs)

[edit] List of countries not permitting multiple citizenship

Can we add a list of countries which don't allow multiple citizenship? I know of China, Japan, Belarus. What others are there?

  • A nieve question: If you are a citizen of a country which doesn't allow multiple citizenship, and you apply in a new country for a passport, does that country have to tell your home country that you've applied. ie. Could a Japanese person have a US passport and citizenship, and simply not tell the Japanese government? How would they ever know? Seabhcán 11:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Here's an example. Each time a German citizen living in Canada applies to renew his German passport, he is required to obtain a recently issued letter from Canada Immigration stating that he has NOT obtained Canadian citizenship.
Addtionally, when some countries grant citizenship to a person they will advertise that person's name (and/or country of birth) in some type of publicly issued government announcement. A country that actively wants to minimize dual citizenship could be searching such a publication. Steggall 14:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • the law of some countries revokes citizenship automatically in these circumstances. So in this situation, depending on what Japanese law says, the person might be illegally holding a Japanese passport. JAJ 00:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's wrong for any country in the world to deny its citizens the opportunity to hold multiple citizenship. No wonder people have to agonize over what citizenship they have to give up. What if a citizenship is automatically acquired at birth, a problem ethnic Arabs face. See the articles South Korean nationality law and Japanese nationality law for more info on the problem some Arabs born in those countries face. (Unsigned, 15:20, 25 November 2006 Dwainberg)
Be that as it may, the point of Wikipedia is not a blogish exchange of views on issues. -- Boracay Bill 14:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, most Arab countries and territories--autocratic (e.g. Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Qatar and Syria) and democratic (e.g. Palestinian Territories, Lebanon) allow their nationals to hold multiple citizenship. See [1] and [2] for more info. Why can't democratic countries that set a maximum age for their nationals to hold multiple citizenship e.g. Germany, Japan and South Korea follow their Arab cousins? Ambassadors from those countries who have diplomatic missions in Germany, Japan, South Korea and others in their position will thank them immensely. Politicians in the three non-Arab countries I've mentioned above should make some noise in their national legislatures and, if necessary, introduce private members bills that would allow foreigners living in such countries the opportunity to acquire the citizenship of their country of residence. (Unsigned, 15:20, 25 November 2006 Dwainberg)
Reiterate my comment above re blogishness. -- Boracay Bill 14:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm from Northern Ireland and I dont like to be called a "Northern Irelander" I'm Northern Irish,also I would like to point out that we are not "De facto" Irish Citizens,being part of the United Kingdom we are British Citizens like any other person just by being born in any other Part of the United Kingdom being it England,Scotland,Wales, or Northern Ireland, the article it self says that we are de facto Irish citizens..this is wrong ..as its says in the Irish Citizenship laws that any one born on the Island of Ireland has an ENTITLEMENT to Irish surely an entitlement means something you can have if you want it so until someone like myself actually gets a application form for a Irish Passport fills it out sends it off to Dublin then gets their Irish Passport in the post 2 wks later thats excising my "Entitlement" to Irish Citizenship so until then we aint de facto Irish Citizens though the Entitlement is there for anyone Born on the Geographical island of Ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scales67 (talk • contribs)
I've changed the wording to something more neutral. It's worth noting that not everyone from Northern Ireland is entitled to Irish citizenship - for example, immigrants who have become naturalised British citizens do not have that entitlement. Also, there are some cases where children born in Northern Ireland with parents are neither British citizens nor permanent residents may be Irish citizens but not British citizens (at least not at birth, there are ways to acquire British citizenship later). The Irish have changed their law from 1 January 2005 - for those born on or after that that date, birth in the Republic of Ireland or Northern Ireland is not enough in itself to create an entitlement to Irish citizenship. JAJ 00:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster that we should create a list of those countries that do and do not support dual or multi citizenship. Any other takers?--Saintlink 03:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

That won't work because in most cases the answer is much more complex than "yes" or "no" JAJ 23:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, I should have clarified a bit better. I meant to say "create a list of all the countries and their various dual citizenship policies." As the list would get to be quite long, I suggest we categorize it on another page. We would just list all the countries in alphabetical order and then create each article as we go. Does that sound agreeable?--Saintlink 14:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this best addressed with the nationality law article for each specific country? JAJ 00:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
In this regard, the recent similar-case example in Status of religious freedom by country having been forked off of Separation of church and state is instructive (though not, IMHO, as a template to be followed). -- Boracay Bill 02:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I reverted the link addition again, because I feel it is more in line with Wikipedia policy. I think this is getting close to the "excessive lists can dwarf articles" point. When do we stop adding countries? This is not the place for this list IMHO. Some of these links don't even talk about dual citizenship per se. Of course information is good, but Wikipedia is not set up as a search engine. If someone wants information on a particular country, they can then go the country's website directly.

This is my feeling anyway. If the community thinks these links should be here, that's fine with me. They were only added recently. --PhilipO 16:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the links. If they don't belong here, where do they belong? They are not always under the individual countries. The link on Irish citizenship was originally on the Ireland page. Someone over there decided that wasn't the place for it.
I'm a firm believer that information is good, and more information is better. So, rather than worrying about pedantic rules let's make the information available. Irish Hermit 01:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, you've answered the question yourself. They belong on the individual country pages - particularly the UK link which hasn't much to do with multiple citizenship per se. Cheers. --PhilipO 01:53, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-national citizenship - US state citizenship question...

This section states that 'state citizenship' is obtained by becomeing resident of the state. Does this apply to non-US citizens? Ie. Is a Mexican who is legally resident in Texas a citizen of Texas, but not a US citizen? Or should we qualify the statement by saying that "A US citizen obtains a state citizenship by becoming resident there." Seabhcán 09:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map is Incorrect

Brazil does allow dual citizenship; the map says it does not. Anyone mind changing it?

Some sources: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/2000-01/01cib05.htm (table 1) http://www.capriotti.com/dual.htm http://www.uscitizenship.info/citizenship-library-dual.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan1113 (talk • contribs)

Would you mind providing some first-hand sources? Not other government's pages and commercial websites? Cheers. +Hexagon1 (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
http://www.brasil.org.co/htm/consularbr5.htm "Não há qualquer restrição quanto à múltipla nacionalidade de brasileiros que possuam nacionalidade originária estrangeira, em virtude de nascimento (jus soli) ou de ascendência (jus sanguinis). Isto significa que todo indivíduo que, no momento de seu nascimento, já detinha direito a cidadania diferente da brasileira, reconhecida por Estado estrangeiro, poderá mantê-la sem conflito com a legislação brasileira."
It says that there is no restriction on multiple citizenship if you were born with the right to have a citizenship of some other country (by birth or parents, etc).
In the summary (EM RESUMO), it says that again, but it says that you cannot have dual citizenship by marriage to a foreigner, just by location of birth or by family line (parents etc). (I suppose it also means that foreigners going to Brazil can get Brazilian citizenship and keep the other since the other was gotten by birth. Well, not just 'suppose' -- I know this is the case with quite a few people (and going the other direction too).)Dan1113
Okay dokay, I'll change it. You need to flush your cache to see your changes. +Hexagon1 (talk) 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think a few more changes are needed:
* Iceland does allow dual citizenship since 2003. Icelandic nationality law
* I'd think India is more a "no" than a "yes". Indian nationality law
* I haven't got specific references at the moment, but as far as I understand it, Poland, Croatia and the Philippines do allow dual citizenship.
* the eastern half of Tierra del Fuego should be colored the same as mainland Argentina. JAJ 00:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I've recoloured India, Iceland, and what I assume is Tierra del Fuego (the formely green thing under Argentina). I can't recolour Poland, Croatia and the Philippines without references, though. Thanks for the notice. +Hexagon1 (talk) 11:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
* Poland appears to be more "yes" than "no" [3] and [4]
* Croatia is more "no" than "yes" so the map appears to be correct Details
* Philippines appears to be more "yes" than "no" (laws changed in 2003) Details JAJ 15:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
"A Polish citizen may gain foreign citizenship with full effect under Polish law once he/she receives a permission to renounce Polish citizenship granted by the President of the Republic of Poland." - I'd say that's a no, and I've recoloured the Ph's. +Hexagon1 (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
What it seems to mean is that a Polish citizen who becomes a U.S. or Australian citizen keeps their Polish citizenship unless they voluntarily renounce it, hence the "yes". The fact that Poland doesn't "recognise" dual citizenship is not really relevant, most countries don't do so even where it's allowed, eg Master Nationality Rule. JAJ 17:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The text states they may acquire other citizenship once they receive a permission to renounce Polish one. +Hexagon1 (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. If a Polish citizen wants to become Australian and keep Polish citizenship, then he does not need any permission - he can become Australian and Poland will continue to treat him as if he was solely a Polish citizen (so he must enter and leave Poland on a Polish passport). This is just like what the U.S. does with Americans who naturalise elsewhere, the U.S. (like Poland) doesn't recognise dual citizenship but because it does not revoke the nationality of Americans who naturalise elsewhere it allows dual citizenship. JAJ 12:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I didn't pay adequate attention to the "may gain foreign citizenship with full effect under Polish law " bit. You can change the map or I'll do it tommorrow, it's 4 am. (note the map is really at commons) +Hexagon1 (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Venezuela allows multiple citizenship since December 15, 1999 ( http://www.embavenez-us.org/constitution/title_III.htm, article 34) JRSP 02:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands allows multiple citizenship as well...

[edit] UK/US citizenship

Could I please get a source on the part about is a US citizen living in the UK 5 yrs automatically gets dual citizenship.Jim Bart 21:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Such a person wouldn't "automatically" have dual citizenship. After five years of residence, the person could apply for natrualisation in the UK. Once the naturalisation was complete, he would then have both British citizenship, and his original US citizenship, and therefore be a dual citizen. Steggall 23:47 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem talking about "recognition" of multiple citizenship

The term "recognise" is potentially ambiguous in a discussion of multiple citizenship. Some (probably most) people will be thinking of whether a given country allows its citizens to hold additional citizenships — but others will assume the term refers to whether a given country acknowledges (or cares about) the fact that one of its citizens might also have another citizenship (i.e., whether or not a country gives any different status to one of its citizens if he/she also has citizenship in some other country).

In order to sidestep this potential for confusion, I would recommend that most (possibly all) uses of "recognize" in this article should be replaced with "allow" or "permit" — since that's what is really being discussed (does a given country allow one of its citizens to also be a citizen of another country?).

Admittedly, I have read of a few cases where the other kind of "recognition" of multiple citizenship exists — e.g., treaties where Country X agrees not to assert its own citizenship claims against one of its expatriates who enters on a passport from Country Y — but that's a very different matter.

Richwales 18:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I haven't noticed this. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This whole area of countries "recognizing" foreign citizenships or "allowing" their citizens to hold foreign citizenships needs a look. I don't have legal training, but my understanding is that countries may be able (1) to administratively strip their citizenship from someone who holds it and/or (2) to punish persons (e.g., citizenship restriction violators) who they feel need punishment where they have the ability to impose punishment (e.g., the person has local assets which can be seized, is physically accessible for imprisonment, etc.), but not much else. Also, (unrelated) this article seems to use the terms citizen and national somewhat interchangeably. My understanding is that these terms are not interchangeable, and that their definitions may vary from country to country. -- Boracay Bill 02:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is now a para in the intro on this issue. In most cases, what is being discussed as "recognizing", allowing, etc., boils down to not actively stopping - either legally or in practice, and multiple citizenship may exist in practice, but not in law in many countries.--Gregalton 07:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reinstated slightly modified text that was objected to on the basis of the para containing a tautology. I disagree with the assertion that "permitting" and "not forbidding" constitutes a tautology; this is not a core tenet in some legal systems, and they are separate concepts. To give a specific example, parking may be permitted but regulated. That said, I've substituted the word recognized to make clear the distinction. The issue remains because in many cases (including this page), in popular discourse discussion of multiple citizenship often refers to "Country X allows/permits/recognizes" multiple citizenship where there may be no such legal concept.--Gregalton 07:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with many of the comments, which reflect the complexity of the issue. Indeed there seems to be a gradient of how another citizenship is treated; on a descending scale of permissiveness: recognize (the citizen can be treated as a citizen of another country if they so desire), allow =~ tolerate =~ ignore, and forbid. 'Forbid' may also mean a number of things. Similar ideas were expressed below under "Edit the map", and some of this could be elaborated upon in the text if the senior contributors don't object. I've tried to clarify a few points by editing the introductory paragraphs. I replaced the example of Singapore and Japan, from which it is not clear of what exactly those countries do, with more specific illustrations. I am new here, and I hope that I am not stepping on anyone's toes. Dr.007 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada's Governor General Edit

Removed a bracket explaing that Michaelle Jean renounced citizenship, but could reclaim it at the end of her term in 2008 due to her "diplomatic immunity". This was incorrect for many reasons:

1) She is not a diplomat.

2) She was appointed in 2005. A five year term would end in 2010, not 2008, but see below.

3) She does not have a term. GGs serve, to quote the Letters Patent 1947, "at His Majesty's pleasure". Five years is traditional, but it is not a term.

4) That bracketed comment was nonsensical. How does diplomatic immunity allow someone to recover citizenship?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.218.17 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Edit the map

Could someone with the necessary skill level please edit the map by changing Taiwan from red to yellow?

How about editing the map so that the countries are classified into 6 categories, with countries classified under different categories highlighted in different colours:

Concerning point 4, Germany only has age limits for multiple nationals born on German soil who would not have otherwise inherited German citizenship. German nationals who were born in foreign countries and inherited nationality from either parent aren't restricted. 69.151.233.215 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

--- In the image in this article, Spain is shown in red, indicating that they do not allow dual citizenship. However I am a dual citizen of Spain and the United States so I know this to not be true. Please fix this! --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.22.4 (talk • contribs)

Hmmm.... The map does appear to be incorrect in re Spain. Section 11 of the Spanish constitution reads:

Section 11
1. Spanish nationality shall be acquired, retained and lost in accordance with the provisions of the law.
2.No person of Spanish birth may be deprived of his or her nationality.
3.The State may negotiate dual nationality treaties with Latin-American countries or with those which have had or which have special links with Spain. In these countries Spaniards may become naturalized without losing their nationality of origin, even if those countries do not grant a reciprocal right to their own citizens.

  • 11(1) says that the constitution is not the final word on this. Ordinary laws might specify anything at all regarding Spanish nationality.
  • 11(2) implies that a person of Spanish birth (not sure what "Spanish birth" means - born on Spanish soil? Having a Spanish parent? Something more complicated?) is a Spanish national, and says that such a person may not be deprived of Spanish nationality.
  • 11(3) speaks of the possibility of dual Spanish/Other nationality, and apparently contradicts 11(2) by mentioning the possibility of loss of Spanish nationality.

The above is confusing, but it does appear from 11(3) that Spain should not be colored red on the map. I think that the map should be removed, as the question Does this or that country "permit" multiple citizenships? more often than not does not have a black & white answer which can be accurately shown in red vs. yellow. -- Boracay Bill 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argentina

Can anyone confirm that Argentina does not allow multiple citizenship? It is common in people with european ancestors to have argentinian citizenship (by being born there) and one european nationality (obtained for being a child of a foreigner). If there is such a law, it is completely ineffective.

[edit] The Sub-national citizenship section

Let me take the first entry in this section bit by bit:

I think this is a stretch. I don't think there are any dual-citizenship issues between the U.S. national government and the governments of any of the several states.
  • State citizenship, however, is informal in practice, and is obtained simply by taking up residence in any given state.
Residency requirements for state citizenship vary state by state. I looked at some (not all) state constitutions, and see that some confer state residency after some stated period of residence in the state on persons who are not U.S. citizens.
I don't think the absence dual-citizenship is an issue is deserving of a mention here. Also of note, (and also not an issue here) residents of (some?) U.S. territories and possessions become U.S. citizens by birth, similarly to persons born in the District of Columbia.
  • There is now almost no legal bearing brought by such an arrangement, except possibly for interstate extradition.
Article V Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (as amended by Amendment XIII) reads:
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
  • <!-- Residency requirements for political candidates almost never refer to the term "citizenship" anymore. -->
Not true. One example at [7]

Perhaps this first subsection should read simply:

  • Under the U.S. Constitution, all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. -- Boracay Bill 04:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree, this is overly long and not of interest here. It should be in an article on the U.S. instead.

[edit] Germany and Age Limitation

I invite all of you to read the excellent article on the German nationality law before deliberating on Germany's multiple citizenship policy. The age limitation provision applies to those who became German by birth, and not citizenship by descent. In other words, a person born in the USA to non-naturalized German parents remains a German citizen for the duration of their life, while a child born to foreigners in Germany must choose at the age of 23 or lose German citizenship. 69.151.233.215 02:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

What purpose does the Examples section serve? There are countless possible scenarios where persons may acquire multiple citizenships, and those provided are not particularly instructive and presented in a haphazard fashion. I find that it is sufficiently clear in the opening section how multiple citizenship comes about. Readers wishing to find out more about specific countries can easily follow the links to articles about their nationality laws. Kraikk 12:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Examples section does serve the purpose of illustrating the fact that multiple citizenship is more common than most realise, it also gives a sense of globalisation of today's world. However, some of the similar examples can be removed. Four of the examples deal with a birth of a child to parents of different citizenships in a third country. We probably want examples that simultaneously illustrate multiple issues like naturalisation, jus soli, jus sanguinis, citizenship by descent, sub/supranational citizenships, and citizenship in territories with multiple claims on sovereignty. A good example should be generic enough that it is the case actually experienced by hundreds of thousands of people. It should been shown how these issues are applied in each case. --Kvasir 08:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spain

The map is plain wrong. I'm a dual citizen. I was born in Fort Collins, CO and I live in Valencia, Spain. I hold a spanish ID card and a US passport. Never had a problem and none of the two countries challenged me.

--81.202.158.49 10:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC) I reiterate my cxomments from the Edit the map section above: I think that the map should be removed, as the question Does this or that country "permit" multiple citizenships? more often than not does not have a black & white answer which can be accurately shown in red vs. yellow. -- Boracay Bill 12:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passports

The whole number of passports for dual/multiple citizens is still a problem for me to understand. Let's say you have a number of four different kind of citizenships: American, French, Italian, and Israeli. Do you have a passport from every one of those countries? If so, then which one do you use when traveling? If someone could take the time to help me out, I'd really appreciate it. Cariis1989 05:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, such a person might apply for a passport from any or all of those countries, or not. If the person is physically in the US, for example, he might apply for a US passport from the US State Department, and/or might or might not apply at embassies of the other countries for issuance of any or all of the other passports. Once the person is issued any passport, that person might seek to exit the U.S. using that passport - though there might be difficulty in demonstrating on exit that the person is inside the U.S. legally if he tries to exit using one of the other passports. Also, the U.S. may require that its citizens enter and exit the U.S. using a U.S. passport.
Perhaps this article should contain a subsection on this, probably under Issues. As I understand it (and I cannot cite sources to support any of this), the situation generally is as follows:
  • Ignoring for the moment some exceptions to this, countries require
  • Persons desiring to enter the country to present one of:
  • A passport of the country.
  • A passport of another country, possibly along with other documentation required of aliens entering the country (e.g., entry visa).
  • Persons who are present in the country and desiring to leave to present one of:
  • A passport of the country, possibly along with other documentation required of citizens traveling abroad (e.g., exit permit/visa).
  • A passport of another country, possibly along with documentation demonstrating that the person is present in the country legally, and possibly along with other documentation required of alien visitors or residents desiring to exit the country (e.g., exit permit/visa).
  • Some countries may require their citizens to not to enter or exit the country using a foreign passport.
  • In some situations, by agreements made between countries, international travel may be allowed without passports being required (e.g., (1)some travel between Mexico, USA, and Canada; (2)some travel between European Union countries; etc.).
  • Note that a country is only able to compel travelers carrying its passport to comply with its passport regulations while the traveler is either in the process of entering or leaving the country. (e.g., a country has no way to compel its passport holders not to use another country's passport which they may hold while traveling abroad. A citizen of Country A may exit Country A using the Country A passport, but might enter Country B using the passport of Country B or country C if the travel holds those other passports as well.)
Note that Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies, in part, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." Most countries adhere to this in general principal, though possibly neither strictly nor uniformly. -- Boracay Bill 07:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Citizenship does not automatically equate having a passport for that country. Many countries issue passport to their citizens on discretionary basis. Usually it is possible to use any one of the passports a person posesses to enter a foreign country. By that action, the person expresses his wish to be recognised as a citizen corresponding to that passport. Issue sometimes arise when a person uses passport A to enter a country and later want to be recognised as a citizen of country B based on his passport B. Citizenship also do not equate to the right of abode and entry either. Best examples of these can be seen in the case of China or the UK. While most living in HK, Macau and China are Chinese citizens, residents of those three territories are subjected to internal immigration control and travelling between those territories require proper travelling documents. Between 1971 and 1983, not all now-deprecated Citizens of the UK and Colonies could freely enter the UK and take up residence. --Kvasir 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, we need to remember that, in many case, a person who is a citizen of a country doesn't have a passport of that country. In the case of a single national, this could simply be because, for example, the person never travels abroad. In the case of a dual national, it could be because the person has no particular need of a passport from one of his/her countries. So, as noted above, we mustn't fall into the trap (all too common) of equating citizenship with the possession of a passport: having a passport of a country doesn't make a person a citizen of that country; being a citizen of a country (generally) means that a person can apply for a passport of that country.
Also, and this varies from country to country, the terms Citizenship and Nationality may not be exactly equivalent. My layman's understanding is that a citizen of a country is (usually? always?) a national of that country, but a national isn't necessarily a citizen. U.S. passports, for example, may be issued to U.S. citizens and to non-citizen U.S. nationals, and refer to the person named therein as a "citizen/national of the U.S." The person named in a U.S. passport might well be a non-citizen national of the U.S. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of para re the case of Huseyincan Celil, moved here from the article intro

I have moved a para recently added at the end of the lead section of this article over here, feeling that discussion is needed. The para which I moved reads as follows:

Even in cases where a country's law forbids dual citizenship and automatically revokes citizenship when one of its people acquires another country's citizenship, enforcement of such laws may be inconsistent. China, for example, has refused to acknowledge the Canadian naturalization of prisoner Huseyincan Celil and has rebuffed attempts by Canadian diplomats to intervene in his case, insisting that Celil is a citizen of China despite his having previously moved to Canada and become a citizen of that country.

Firstly (and this point applies to other parts of the lead section as well), this material does not belong in the lead section. WP:GTL says:

Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow. If further introductory material is needed before the first section, this can be covered in subsequent paragraphs.

This material (and some other material currently in the lead section) does not fit that description.

Secondly, and more specifically about this material, it makes assertions which, IMO, need to be supported by cited sources:

  1. China, for example, has refused to acknowledge the Canadian naturalization of prisoner Huseyincan Celil
  2. and has rebuffed attempts by Canadian diplomats to intervene in his case
  3. insisting that Celil is a citizen of China despite his having previously moved to Canada and become a citizen of that country

Those assertions may be supportable, but a quick search by me failed to turn up sources supporting them. I did find this requote of a Hamilton Spectator article in which the writer reports "... raising fears China still regards him as a Chinese national and is ignoring Canadian requests to see him and check on his wellbeing." Another article says "... said Foreign Minister Peter MacKay, complaining Beijing repeatedly refused to let Canadian officials visit the man.", which might go to point #2 above except for the question of whether attempting to visit the man is equivalent to attempting to intervene in the man's case (I think not). Other articles ([8], [9], etc.) throw interesting sidelights on this case.

Thirdly, I think that this is too specifically about this one case to be appropriately presented in this article. If it goes anywhere, it should probably go in the Huseyincan Celil article. Once the point is made in that article, that article might be mentioned here (note that contentious assertions from that article repeated in this one would need to be supported by source citations here).

In passing, I noted that Article 9 of the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China says: "Any Chinese national who has settled abroad and who has been naturalized as a foreign national or has acquired foreign nationality of his own free will shall automatically lose Chinese nationality." If that is to be mentioned, it needs to be supported by a reliable source outside of wikipedia. This would probably do. In connection with this, I suspect that status as a foreign national does not confer immunity from prosecution on terrorism charges in China (or in Canada, or in the U.S.)-- Boracay Bill 01:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The existing article on Huseyincan Celil cites several sources in support of the claims in question. And the issue in Celil's case is not whether Celil is immune from prosecution by China — he certainly is not — but, rather, whether China is acknowledging Celil's status as a Canadian citizen and respecting his right to have Canadian diplomatic officials make representations in his behalf (something the Chinese government has so far not allowed to happen, even though Chinese law would appear to go against their claim that Celil is still a Chinese citizen and thus not entitled to contact from Canadian diplomats). I feel the material in question (which I added and you removed) is appropriate and deserves to be mentioned somewhere in the "multiple citizenship" article. Richwales 05:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Rich. I've looked at the article on Huseyincan Celil, and I noted some cite problems in it. I was able to fix some of the problems I saw, but had to mark some for attention by others. I didn't find a working citation on that page supporting the assertion that Chinese authorities are claiming that he is a Chinese citizen (I'm not arguing that they're not, just saying that I've seen no support for this assertion). It does appear to my layman's eye that Chinese authorities are not honoring the China/Canada Consular agreement (see Article 8 -- I'll mention of that and provide a cite over on the Huseyincan Celil page), but that concerns Canadian citizenship and, AFAICT, does not concern Chinese citizenship. One source cited on the Huseyincan Celil page says "Li Wei, director of the Center of Counter-Terrorism, Chinese Institute of Contemporary International Relations, emphasized that because Celil was on Interpol's Red List before being admitted into Canada, the Consulate Agreement signed by the two states doesn't apply to this case.", which sounds bogus to me but, again, doesn't assert that Huseyincan Celil is a Chinese citizen. I don't think that mention of this case belongs on this page unless it is clear that multiple-nationality status is a central issue in his situation.

This article documents a current event. The Huseyincan Celil article is tagged with {{current}}, saying, "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." I think that it's best to wait for the dust to settle a bit here. Once it is clear what the situation is, and once that situation has been made clear on the Huseyincan Celil page, with key points supported by good cites of supporting sources, it might be useful to mention the situation there. Of course, if/when that is done, assertions made on this page need to be supported by citations located on this page.

Remember, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP. -- Boracay Bill 06:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC) copyedited 11:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (sigh)

[edit] Example 11 -= Deleted gratuitous comment from Example 11

The comment which I deleted from Example 11 was: "A similar clause in the Oath of citizenship (United States) is never enforced."

  • in the case of Taiwan, we're talking about renouncing citizenship. In the case of the U.S. Oath, we're talking about renouncing allegiance and fidelity — not comparable cases.
  • in the case of Taiwan, we're talking about nationality law. In the case of the U.S., we're talking about an oath. Laws can be directly enforced, oaths cannot — not comparable cases. -- Boracay Bill 03:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overseas Citizenship of India

I have reinstated some text regarding Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) that was previously deleted. It is indeed the case, as the person making the deletion noted, that Overseas Citizenship of India does not confer regular dual or multiple citizenship. However, it was never my intention to claim that. I merely claim that there is a trend, in recent years and in some nations, in the direction of allowing dual/multiple citizenship. I merely claim that India has taken a step in that direction with OCI, not that India has or will go all the way to permitting full dual/multiple citizenship. Clearly, from the reference cited, OCI conveys some rights that an ordinary non-Indian citizen does not enjoy, although also OCI stops well short of conveying full citizenship rights. I therefore claim it is a step towards dual/multiple citizenship. I would also add that relying on a given country's own documents as to what is/is not dual/multiple citizenship can be unreliable, as many countries are reluctant to acknowledge that they permit dual/multiple citizenship even if they do--to avoid the impression of double loyalties. I have reworded the text a bit to try to make my meaning clearer--feel free to rework it some more but clearly OCI is an important data point in this discussion and should not simply be removed from the article.--Dash77 21:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't initially see the new section on OCI when I wrote what I wrote above. I've left in the new section on OCI but reworked my text some more to reference the section on OCI.--Dash77 21:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly a document online with the Indian Government's Ministry of Home Affairs does refer to overseas citizenship of India as a form of dual citizenship, as do other documents on the same Indian government site. However, I still agree that overseas citizenship stops well short of being true dual citizenship as the term is normally understood, so I will hold off on making any further changes to the main page--I am simply making note of this on this talk page to see how others react/change the main page.--Dash77 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Example 14

I've moved Example 14 here for discussion because I have problems with it. It reads:

Example 14: A person born to in the U.S. to Filipino parents immediately become a U.S. citizen then a Filipino citizen but even before the child becomes a Filipino citizen as well he/she may live in the Philippines until then because he/she`s parents are Filipino. Since the childs parents are Filipino the child is eligible for a Filipino citizenship.

Article IV of the Philippine constitution reads {see here):

“

Article IV Citizenship

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;

(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;

(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine Citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and

(4) Those who are naturalized in the accordance with law.

Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.

Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.

Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law to have renounced it.

Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.

 ”

As I read this, the child is a Philippine citizen at birth. Given this, the example might more correctly read:

Example 14: A person born in the U.S. and having at least one Filipino parent is a citizen of both the U.S. and of the Philippines at birth.

However, I'd question whether this example would add enough to the article to justify its appearance. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)