The country doesn’t control the citizenship status another country claims over an individual, it merely doesn’t recognize that claim.
I think that is a very important distinction. I’m sure what you said about only the very best are picked for positions in the State Department and posted overseas is correct. However, I seriously doubt the average rank and file INS/USCIS officers in the US processing the immigration paperworks, or the CBP agents at the borders, are held to nearly the same standard…
My own experience is that whatever the law actually is, officials usually turn a blind eye for the most part, many times the dual citizenship is of someone who still has family “back home” and would like to visit without a visa.
The examples given above were rather exceptional cases. Dissidents.
It would seem a Dane who has lost Danish citizenship and is now a foreign national could then apply for Danish citizenship and keep both.
I would have to hear from lawyers experienced in this area to know for certain but I suspect that most countries which have laws whereby a national would lose their nationality upon acquiring a foreign nationality might probably not enforce them except in particular cases. If the country does not know of the foreign nationality it cannot act. If it finds out somehow it would have to initiate legal proceedings. I cannot believe you would just receive a letter telling you that you are no longer a citizen because that would lead to all sorts of mistakes. My guess is that they would mostly just ignore it and look the other way except in high profile cases, like Harry Wu, where it is worth the effort.
Regarding the “clever questioning techniques” I think they are ineffective and amount to harassment. Having entered the US many times I have some experience with their “clever interrogation techniques”. I think many who are denied entry are just naive people who are tripped on some stupid question while those more knowledgeable would get around such question easily. A few people are rejected and that meets whatever quotas they have but that does not mean those people were all necessarily the worst or that all that got through were clean.
Mostly the technique is to try to get the subject to contradict himself on something and this is done by asking the same questions over and over. Maybe some young, naive person will be tripped by this but anyone a bit more experienced is just going to feel harassed and annoyed.
Q- What are these keys for?
A- My apartment.
Later.
Q- What are these keys for?
A- My apartment.
Later.
Q- What are these keys for?
A- Bin Laden’s cave in Bora Bora. . . . Oh, shit! I just gave myself away. Yes, I confess Bin Laden is on vacation there.
The moment they catch a contradiction they have you by the balls with the application of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, Lying to Government Agents. This is applicable to all persons, not just foreigners.
IMHO the interrogation is unnecessarily confrontational and demeaning and has resulted in a dramatic loss of tourists and business travellers for the USA at a time when world tourism was booming. I believe wide net techniques like that are a waste of time and it is better to focus on specific individuals, infiltrate groups, etc. But it is all part of the security theater which gives Americans the feeling that something is being done.
I concur.
These questions have always been asked when entering the country prior to 9/11. It’s not just terrorist related. Some borders have always been easier than others, but there’s always been an immigration “interview” when entering the country. When patrolling our borders, it’s important to determine whether the person trying to enter is entitled to enter, whether he’s a terrorist trying to destroy us, a mojado that doesn’t know any better, a love-struck woman who only wants to be with her man but hasn’t met the legal requirements, a legal alien, a US citizen, a valid tourist who intends to overstay his visa, a student, and so on. There’s no false sense of security there; it’s a valid, important task. (Note that I’m not disputing that there aren’t assholes who are customs/immigration officers, only that the task is legitimate.)
The “interview” has gotten gradually worse over the last decades while the rest of the world has become more open. 30~40 years ago this was the sign of repressive dictatorships. Nobody would question that those dictatorships had valid reasons to fear disruptive activities. The question was “Why”. That is the question today about American policy. Why is it that it needs to do things which pretty much no other country needs to do? Why is America the only country which needs to have such an aggressive policy? Cuba, China and other dictatorships don’t do it. Europe does not do it. Why America?
And, does it really produce results? Or does it cost more than it produces? It has cost America billions in tourism, business and goodwill. What has it produced that outweighs this?
I would dispute that it really catches any big fish. I would say that it catches mainly worthless tiny fish while the big fish are not caught by these tactics.
I am no terrorist but I know enough to not carry information on my computer and just send it by mail or transfer it online just because I do not want to be harassed. What kind of terrorist would not know to do that? If I do not want to answer questions about some object all I have to do is give it to my American friend to get it through. Since it is legal there is no problem. But if I carry something myself I am subject to all sort of really stupid questions. Carry a pair of plyers and you’ll find yourself answering questions like “what do you intend to do with these tools?”. Oh, I don’t know… maybe build an intercontinental ballistic missile. I know of no other country which harasses travellers like this. Maybe they do exist but not the places I travel.
I’m certainly not going to dispute that for the most part, the degree to which the U.S. does this is ridiculous and doesn’t accomplish anything useful. However, I am going to dispute that no other countries do this except repressive dictatorships, unless you think the U.K. is a repressive dictatorship.
The second-to-last time I was in the U.K., maybe 3 - 4 years ago, I got grilled by immigration on arrival. Now keep in mind I am a native-born U.S. citizen, I typically travel to Europe maybe once every couple of years for maybe a week, and I had an onward ticket. I’ve never spent more than a week in the U.K., I’ve never worked there, I’ve never had so much as a speeding ticket, I have a relatively non-ethnic name, and pretty much, there is nothing interesting about me on the surface unless you go back 10+ years to see that I’ve traveled to Russia for a couple of extended stays.
I told the officer that I was going to visit my college roommate for a few days, and then onward to France to visit other friends. This was the discussion:
“What is your friend doing in England?”
“She is living with her husband and raising her kids.”
“What’s her citizenship?”
“U.S.” [I certainly wasn’t going into the part about how she is also a Salvadoran citizen, not that it was relevant anyway. And she is the U.K. equivalent of a permanent resident anyway, so who cares?]
"How long are you staying? (though this was on the form I had just filled out and given him) Where do you work? Do you have an onward ticket? What are you planning to do in the U.K.? " [all info that was already on the form]
This went back and forth for a bit. Finally I mentioned that her husband is a freaking Brit, which seemed to be what he was waiting for to shut up. I swear, I’ve been interrogated less on entering the USSR.
Personally I have never been questioned at all when arriving in the UK and I do not know anyone who has but this is totally biased sample because I am talking about European passports. I can believe the Brits could be pretty bad. Heck, probably any country can be a pain depending on your passport and the stupidity of the guy. But, on the whole, I do not believe the UK is as bad on average, even if specific cases can be. On the whole, I believe the USA is far worse in their requirements but that does not excuse other countries which may be moving in the same direction.
That the UK has joined the EU and allows Euroepan passports without question but would question Americans is totally stupid. Americans on average are no more likely to cause trouble in the UK than Europeans. In fact, I believe all developed countries could mutually open up their borders tomorrow without any big problems and the results would be positive for all. EU countries have opened up mutually and have benefitted. Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, could open up tomorrow without any problems.
I travel to Canada a lot and I have about as many experiences with aggressive Canadian border agents as I do with American ones.
But to be honest, most of the time I get through all border crossings with not much hassle.
Ed
I was pretty harshly interrogated when I visited the U.K. in 2007. I was a naive enough traveler not to have the address of the hostel where I was staying–this hadn’t been a problem when I visited Italy previously and I hadn’t read anything warning me specifically that I would need that information.
After I handed the immigration guy my form, he asked me, in rapid fire, what I was planning to do in the U.K., what kind of job I had, how old I was, how my parents could contact me if I didn’t know my hostel information yet, and how much money I had. It got worse, of course. Loudly enough that other people were staring, he asked how I could prove I wasn’t a terrorist, why I only had one bag with me, what I would do if I ran out of money, if I planned to work illegally, if I planned to injure myself and use NHS, and I’m probably forgetting most of it. He threatened to send me back to the U.S. on the next flight and pretended to think it over for a minute before stamping my passport and warning me that if I ever tried this trick again, I would immediately be deported. This whole process lasted several minutes.
It was extremely belittling and stressful, especially the pubic nature of it, and I have to say it affected my opinion of the country and the likelihood I’d go back in the future. In particular, the idea that I might be a terrorist because I wasn’t prepared with all of my travel information (I was meeting friends in London who had it, but had they not showed up for some reason, I could have just gone to an internet cafe to retrieve it) was completely ludicrous. If they thought I was just planning to immigrate illegally, that’s more understandable, but ripping someone to shreds to see how they react doesn’t strike me as a particularly effective strategy unless the goal is discouraging tourism altogether. Thinking about it still makes me angry.
Sailor, I agree that these tactics are useless for catching “big fish,” but the U.S. is not alone in becoming a hostile, isolationist country.
You are right and I think there are as many cases as there are people. If Europeans are treated badly in America and Americans in Europe you can just imagine how poor people from third world countries or Muslims are treated.
But I think it is still fair to say the USA is the worst and that it is leading the way. The EU has been hesitant to share as much information as the American authorities wanted but I am afraid once the practice is in place the EU and others will also take advantage of the practice. I think America leads the world in many things, for good and for bad.
At any rate, this wide net control is worthless. You might as well put in place road blocks or similarly interrogate people traveling between American cities. You might catch a few guys carrying dope but it would not be worth the effort.
Up until not too long ago European countries felt they must control their borders for security. Then they got together and stopped those controls and security was no worse for it.
Security is not enhanced by harassing everybody but by intelligent police work, infiltration, etc. Harassing of the general public achieves nothing but waste money and resources. And scare away visitors.
Man, the worst I have ever been treated by immigration - aside from the Israelis, who take the customs experience to a whole new level of humiliation but you can’t get too upset about it because they really do have a legitimate reason for it - was crossing into Croatia. Keep in mind that I was on a bus that was only passing through Croatia and the border guys knew perfectly well that I would be in their fair country for about an hour, and both to and fro they were WAY up in my business about what I was doing. No one else. Just me. (Everyone else seemed to be a citizen of a former Yugoslav country.) The border guard on the return trip really wanted to give me a nice interrogation on the way back, but was stopped short by the fact that we didn’t have any languages in common. He did take my passport into the little border guard booth for and played with it for awhile as everyone else on the bus stared at me and murmured about how the American girl was holding up the trip.
On that same trip I passed through Macedonia, Serbia, and Bosnia, and no one else did this. I feel a little bitter about Croatia now and routinely advise people not to go there. (Same beaches for cheaper in Albania!)
Well in the UK the interview for me generally goes like this;
“Sir where was your flight from”?
“Pakistan”
“What are you intending to do in the United Kingdom?”
“I am studying to be a barrister”
“Welcome to the United Kingdom sir!”
I do know that the UK Border Agency trains its personnel to recognise the fact that being irritable may wel be due to a 9 hour flight, not because of something sinister.
TSA dose not seem to have realised that.
In interests of full disclousure, for all I have said about US Immigrations and Customs, it is the most lovely, fascintaing and amazing country and I would love to visit again and again, and one day when my financial position has improved, I will.
This is a bit tangential to the OP, but I’m curious as to how things are handled with arranged marriages, or at least ones that aren’t “romantic” in the western tradition. I’ve known of people who were American citizens, had their extended families help pick someone from the motherland, and then brought the intended over to marry, all without engaging in anything that would leave a courtship trail for immigration to examine. Unfortunately, I’ve lost touch with my friend who’d had a marriage very much like this, so I can’t just ask her.
Are allowances made for cultures in which one isn’t expected to be “in love” before marriage?
My Japanese husband is routinely treated rudely when he goes to England. When he was younger and didn’t speak English very well it was always very stressful for him.
What seemed to throw up massive red flags for him was that he said he was visiting his wife and parents but he was travelling alone, as he always has shorter holidays than me, so I guess it looked like he was trying to enter the country to join us and stay.
The first time he came over he came with me and I walked right through the British line and then had to hang around at the back of the hall for a looooong time while he was questioned. He said they’d got angry/irritated that he hadn’t understood all the questins and they’d just got louder to compensate for it.
When he opened his passport, they’d stamped a huge enormous (nearly the full page!) red stamp saying something like “NO PERMISSION TO WORK GRANTED”. He was soooo insulted, having a job in Japan that he loves. He kept looking at the stamp and saying “But I don’t WANT to work here…”
On the other hand as of last year I have to be photographed and fingerprinted on re-entering Japan despite having permanent residence and that pisses me off mightily, not being a criminal. So I don’t feel too sorry for him.
USCIS and consulates in affected regions are hip to these things. And wedding photos with 500 people in them generally do the trick. I had one Indian client actually submit a wedding video of their 4-hour Hindu ceremony.
Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal
Whats the training given to TSA? Are they told, that “probably he is irritable because its been a 13 hour flight, not because he wants to do something bad”.
Citizenship isn’t about love, it’s about legal obligations like paying taxes and serving in the military. It’s a type of contract that may inherently demand exclusivity in certain things.
Marriage is similar. The government doesn’t care whether you and your husband love each other, it just cares whether you satisfy the legal obligations of marriage (sexual fidelity, co-ownership of marital assets and debts, etc.) The U.S. doesn’t care whether you love Mongolia, but it has an interest that you not enlist in the Mongolian army.
Another example is an employment agreement. You probably signed an agreement with your employer that while in their employ, you promise not to work for any other firm in the same line of business. Nobody forced you to sign it, but if you did, you’re bound by its terms.
Some countries don’t permit dual citizenship. It’s their right to do so, isn’t it? If you don’t want to renounce all other loyalties, then don’t become a citizen of such a country. (I am aware that the U.S. Oath of Allegiance requires one to renounce all other loyalties but that the U.S. government no longer really holds the ordinary person to this.)
One practical example of why a country may not permit dual citizenship is that it complicates unsecured debts. I wouldn’t want to loan money to a person if I knew he could just go back to his home country and leave me holding the bag. But I don’t know whether it’s even legal to ask a person’s citizenship status under such circumstances, and I don’t want to hire a lawyer to find out. That makes me hesitant to loan money to anyone, or if I do loan money, I have to charge everyone a little more interest to guard against this particular form of deadbeat.
England does the same thing with the pay-call for questions and large fees. I guess I can stop complaining about it now that I know that the US does it too–the pay call thing. It really creates a bad first impression, I’ll agree with you on that.