I’ve always wondered about this. I was born on an american military base in Spain. I still have my Spanish birth cirtifiate and everything. Do I have dual citizenship? Would I be elligeble for an EC passport?
I would think yes, but I think you’d need to ask a Spanish immigration agent.
My daughter is half-Australian half-Swedish and was born in Hong Kong, but qualifies for an EU passport through her mother.
Being born in Spain, but having, I assume, American parents should qualify you for a Spanish/EU passport, but I guess the quirk would be the US military base, which I think might be considered US sovereign turf.
FWIW, you seem to be a US citizen by law, and by virtue of being born by American citizens on American soil at a military base.
What Spain does with your birth, is a whole other story. I would say that if someone calls into question that you have a birth certificate, that doesn’t mean much–just means that you were born and someone recorded it for an official “birth date”.
However, if you have a passport or other ‘citizenship papers’ from Spain, that’s a whole other story.
I doubt you would qualify for an EU passport.
Tripler
Unless one of your parents were European. . . 
>> FWIW, you seem to be a US citizen by law, and by virtue of being born by American citizens on American soil at a military base.
No. An American base is not American soil in any way which is why the US government is using Guantánamo to try to get around the US constitution. if he was born of American parents he was born an American citizen and the place of birth is irrelevant.
>> Being born in Spain, but having, I assume, American parents should qualify you for a Spanish/EU passport
Why do you think so? Most countries do not grant citizenship to those born there from foreign parents. The USA is an exception to the rule.
With most European countries, I understood being born there gets you citizenship, as does Australia and New Zealand.
In Hong Kong, if you are Chinese ethnicity, being born there can get you right of abode (equivalent of citizenship).
Japan and most Arab countries follow paternity (there are 3rd generation people of Korean heritage born in Japan who cannot get Japanese citizenship). With African and South American countries, I have no idea.
I believe you are mistaken. I know there are turks who have lived in Germany for generations and have not acquired citizenship. I believe Spain does not grant citizenship to those born of foreign parents either. What is the basis for your understanding? Do you have any supporting evidence?
My goodness, could you possibly pick an example more full of holes? Right of abode is “right to reside” and not “citizenship”. And I won’t deal with the “chinese ethnicity” issue because that’s a whole 'nother can of worms.
There you go.
I fully disagree. Embassies are by de facto American soil (an example[sub]scroll down or do a search for “soil”[/sub]) , why aren’t military bases? We don’t practice Kuwaiti law at Ahmed Al Jaber AB. If nothing more than by rule of force within that barbed wire perimeter, we’re practicing American law, and while some may be leased, it’s American soil.
And we’re getting around the Guantánamo bay detainees by calling them “enemy combatants” [sub]which seems to be a way of not calling them “prisoners of war”.
Tripler
I would think there would be a way to classify these detainees in a black or white case by now though. . . :dubious:
A newborn is a Spanish national regardless of place of birth IF one of the parents is a Spanish national
A newborn is a Spanish national if born in Spain AND:
- one of the parents was also born in Spain (excluding diplomats and other foreign officials) OR
- if the parents have no nationality or their countries refuse to recognise the child as their national OR
- if it is impossible to determine who the parents are.
Source: http://www.e-todolegal.com/nacionalidades/index.php
I would believe the exception regarding “diplomats and other foreign officials” would also apply to foreign military personnel.
You have picked the two EU countries I don’t know about (plus Portugal). All the rest of the EU countries, plus Norway, to the best of my knowledge allow citizenship to people born in their borders.
Yes, Portuguese citizenship for Chinese Macanese, which I understand is quite messy.
No, “right of abode” gives you a PRC passport and citizenship, as well as the right to live in Hong Kong. The Chinese ethnicity rule is gradually being eroded by the High Court of Hong Kong - a girl of Indian ethnicity has right of abode in Hong Kong (as reported by the South China Morning Post a few months back).
Cite? Certainly: http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/topical_3.htm
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Tripler *
I fully disagree. Embassies are by de facto American soil (an example[sub]scroll down or do a search for “soil”[/sub]) , why aren’t military bases? We don’t practice Kuwaiti law at Ahmed Al Jaber AB. If nothing more than by rule of force within that barbed wire perimeter, we’re practicing American law, and while some may be leased, it’s American soil.
Nope. Wrong. Wrong on every count. Let’s see. . . .
In spite of popular belief and of figures of speech embassies are not under the unlimited sovereignty of the country they belong to. They enjoy by treaty and by convention and reciprocity many immunities but they are not under the unlimited sovereignty of the country they belong to. No way. For example, the USA can sell the building of its embassy in Madrid but it cannot transfer the non-existant sovereignty to another nation. And I have serious doubts that if a Spanish employee of the embassy happens to give birth on the job the newborn would acquire American citizenship at birth by right.
>> why aren’t military bases?
Because they are not embassies and because they are even further removed from the immunities embassies enjoy. The American bases in Spain are in NO way considered US territory, legally or otherwise. Legally they are denominated as “bases of joint Spanish-American use” and Americans may enjoy certain exemptions by treaty (SOFA) but to say an American base in Spain is US territory is extremely ignorant of the issue. Again, show me that if any foreign employee gives birth on the base the child is legally entitled to American citizenship.
And The USA government maintains that Guantánamo not being US soil the “detainees” are not entitled to the full protection of US laws. If you disagree then take it up with President Bush, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC.
I have picked the only country relevant to the OP and another one at random. You say the majority of countries in Europe and the world grant citizenship by birth on their soil? I doubt it. Please show me evidence that Switzerland grants it because I do not believe it does. The UK? I did some digging to support my assertion, do I have to do it all? Will you please show some support for your assertion? Let’s see Switzerland, the UK, France and a couple more countries of your choosing. In the meanwhile I believe the general rule is that countries consider newborns to be of the citizenship of their parents.
You know, if you are going to provide cites you might want to choose those which support what you say and not what I say. That site fully supports my assertion that right of abode and citizenship are totally different:
As this is becoming an exercise in pedantry, you said:
To which I said:
…and provided the link.
You then wrote:
In fact, wrapping a cold towel around my head and re-reading it, the link doesn’t specifically state whether you do or do not acquire PRC citizenship upon gaining right of abode. My apologies for clouding the issue.
The question is in fact obliquely answered here:
http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/topical_2.htm
[sup]1[/sup] …which is the criteria for right of abode.
in other words and to make it short: I am right, residency and nationality are separate and different. Nationality is tied to descent. See where it says “Chinese blood”? See “Chinese descent”? What do you think that means? Just read the damn thing. A foreign national who has lived in HKG may have the right of abode but not Chinese nationality. I really don’t know what is so difficult to understand. All countries distinguish between “residency” and “nationality”, including the USA.
Being born in HKG does not automatically give you Chinese citizenship.
And I am still waiting for cites of all those European countries which you assert do grant citizenship just by being born there. Like Switzerland or France or. . . I want you to show proof this is the norm.
I can’t give you a cite on those that do automatically grant citizenship for just being born there, but you do not automatically lose your US Citizenship by being born to US Citizens overseas.
Getting back to the OP, I think it depends on what his birth certificate says, and what other paperwork he may have been issued by the Spanish government.
Tripler
Let me do a quick looksee on what Spain says.
Well, this may be of some help.
Seems that if you really wanted to press some buttons, give up your US Citizenship (as provided in the link per my previous post), and hire damned good Spanish counsel, you may be able to pull it off.
Just having a Spanish birth certificate would get your foot in the door for litigation, but as I said before, it’s just an official record of time/date of birth.
Were you born on the military base proper, or was it in a hospital in Madrid while your folks were on vacation? What other paperwork do you have?
I’m not a lawyer, but there are legalities that play here. . .
Tripler
But, as the French say, “C’est la vie!”
My, you’re a little firecracker, aren’t you? I never said it did. I said “right of abode” (not “being born in HKG”) gave you “PRC citizenship”.
But this
while not in the link I provided does ring some bells: I vaguely recall that there are some stateless people of Indian and Vietnamese ethnicity who are applying for right of abode. I do however recall from the South China Morning Post that the Indian girl who was granted right of abode also automatically got PRC citizenship. I have just done a few Google searches, but unfortunately nothing came up.
Sorry, spud, this isn’t Great Debates. I’m making a bare assertion on the basis of my limited exposure to the immigration regimes of those countries. Feel free to disprove it.
I am totally baffled by this which appears to me to be a non sequitur. How is this relevant? What am I missing?
Can you explain how? because, as far as I can see he does not fall under any of the categories. Please explain your reasoning because I do not follow you.
In other words, you are making it up. Here’s another bare assertion for you: I’m pretty sure you are wrong (again).
By the way, I just noticed in the OP: it is no longer EC but EU , European Union.