An interesting tidbit in the news - one Saudi complained that even though he had not signed up for the “service”, he got an automatic text message from the Saudi Border authorities notifying him his wife was travelling out of the country, her passport had been scanned outbound. He was sitting beside her on the aircraft at the time and he wanted to know why he had automatically been signed up for this intrusive policy. Apparently women are not allowed to travel without permission from or accompaniment by an adult relative (male).
There are two classes of citizens in most countries; as the child of British subjects, I am a British subject despite being born outside Britain; but second class since my (legitimate) children do not inherit my citizenship. Whereas those born in Britian can pass this form of second-class citizenship to their children.
I guess the question is, what are the legal status and rights of Palestinians in the old city of Jerusalem? It is recognized by most of the world as occupied territory, but claimed by Israel as their territory. Are there interesting rules for the Palestinians living there, or are they assumed to be in the same situation as Israeli aArabs elsewhere in the country?
What was the legal status and citizenship of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians before the 1967 war - Egypt had the Gaza, Jorrdan the West Bank. Were the occupants considered citizens of those countries? Obviously not today… Palestinian refugees living in camps in various Arab countries are considered “non-Citizens” despite being there since 1967 or 1948.
Aboriginals in Canada can be “status Indians”. If they are recognized as a member of a first nations tribe, they are entitled to a number of benefits - mainly exemption from various taxes (with provisos), free university education (again, with rules).
The Malaysian thing is not one sided. Anyone ethnically Malyan has to be a muslim and is not allowed to drink/purchase alcohol, has to obey Shariah courts, etc.
Frankly I’d rather pay a bit more for a house!
Something similar operates in Singapore and Brunei aiui, which makes sense historically speaking I suppose.
I don’t know the details, but I believe there is or was a similar situation in West Germany which may still pertain in the reunited Germany. WG had many Turkish “guest workers” who were not citizens–and their children and grandchildren were not, either. I’m not sure if they were ineligible to become citizens, or discouraged, or if it was just made very difficult for them, but in fact they didn’t. The notion of “birthright citizenship” may be one that is particular to certain states, like the United States, but a hereditary status of “permanent resident” or “guest worker” seems pretty close to a second-class citizen to me.
Of course the idea of Germans treating non-native-borns differently sticks in the craw to this day; and while we may criticize, and rightly, the colonial regimes of France and the UK, citizens of the Commonwealth can move to Britain and work there without restriction; while those living in the few remaining French colonies are considered fully French, are represented in the Assembly, and I think by law pay “local” telephone rates when calling France.
Are you sure this is true? I was born in Australia but have a British passport (and an Australian one) since both my father and mother are British. AFAIK, any children I have can also claim British Citizenship if I am married at the time when they are born no matter where they are born.
The former colonies of the British Empire who are still on reasonable terms with the UK, plus a special guest appearance by Mozambique and Rwanda. Lord Feldon is right; once upon a time (up until the late 1970s/early 1980s, I’ve heard) being from the Commonwealth was basically an automatic “in” to the UK - now it basically only seems makes it easier to get a working holiday visa.
We can vote in elections. We are also not treated as foreigners for almost all purposes. technically a visa for commonwealth citizens is called “entry clearance”, or it was when I was there. The advantages are small but measurable and in certain circumstances quite good.
I did a little reading–ok, wiki, but I tried–and came away confused. I’m happy to have my ignorance fought, but it is not clear to me what the distinction is between a British subject, a British citizen, and what privileges and penalties apply to citizens of commonwealth countries. I am left with the impression that there are different categories of British citizen/subject.
Children and grandchildren of immigrants choosing not to get naturalized not becoming citizens is a feature of all jus sanguinis countries (the non-blue countries in this map, i.e. the majority by number and population.
As for the situation in Germany, the requirements for naturalization are not particularly onerous - eight years legal residence, not depending on welfare, no major criminal record, test of basic German, civics test (the latter two do not apply if you went to school in Germany or IIRC if you are mentally handicapped; I did the civics test in an online version out of curiosity once and I’d estimate you’d have to be almost brain dead not to pass it.). Processing fee is 255 euros for adults. I’d roughly estimate the cost and effort as one tenth of getting your driving license (cost and effort of driving lessons included). Once you are naturalized, your future descendants are citizens by jus sanguinis, of course.
About two thirds of legal alien residents of Germany fulfil these requirements and could not be denied naturalization if they applied. Quite a bit more could get in by an administrative waiver of one or more requirements e.g. dependence on welfare that does not look to be permanent.
Only, for a permanent resident of Germany the benefits of citizenship are small - mainly the vote, and not getting deported after serving the sentence for a major criminal conviction. For e.g. a Turk living in Germany the disadvantages of foregoing Turkish citizenship (e.g. noncitizens cannot own land in Turkey, and many jobs cannot be done by noncitizens of Turkey, IIRRC you cannot even work as a barber/hairdresser) much outweigh the advantages of German citizenship.
So what we get here (and, I imagine also in most other jus sanguinis countries) is an unbroken chain of generations choosing not to take the plunge and get naturalized. Paradoxically a remedy would be to discriminate more against noncitizens.
They were ineligible, but not just the Turks: anybody who didn’t have German ancestry. I understand the situation has changed.
That map Mops linked looks iffy to me: it lists as “jus sanguinis” several EU countries where I know it’s not a requirement to be a citizen’s child to be a citizen, but which do grant citizenship to children of citizens living abroad and/or have “return rights” for grandchildren or great-grandchildren of emigrants (they’re not automatic citizens but it is easier for them to obtain residency and/or naturalization than for someone with no blood links). The two things are completely different.
From my recollection of the public discussion/reporting on the 1999 legislation: they were eligible; the main change for foreign-born immigrants was that the residence requirement was lowered from 13 to 8 years.
AFAICT, both countries recognize dual citizenship. But Germany has some other requirements, e.g. must be EU members, which seems to disqualify Turkey, for now, until they can get their dream membership. Also, one part says:
“where a naturalized German citizen, or a child born to non-German parents (non-EU or Swiss) in Germany, request and obtain a permission to keep his foreign nationality.”
Many ethnic Turks are born in Germany these days, so could it apply to them, provided the gov’t says it’s okay?
There were (and are) in a strict literal sense, but not in any meaningful sense. British subjects who were not British citizens still held citizenship in the countries they were born in. They only “became” second-class citizens if they emigrated to the UK or other commonwealth states. In that regard, they’re only second-class citizens to the same extent that any immigrant would be treated as a second-class “citizen”.
These are good points, but neither of these statuses are inheritable. The child of a naturalized citizen is a citizen by birth and most likely can be President. It’s not like there are people walking around the US today who were born here and whose parents were born here but who still don’t have full citizenship because their grandparents were naturalized and passed down an inferior citizenship down the generations. Likewise, you don’t get a security clearance because your dad has one.
