Many countries, including my own (Germany), have some principle that says that multiple citizenship runs against public policy and should be avoided. Such jurisdictions typically have provisions that strip you of their citzenship if you get naturalised elsewhere, and they will require foreigners to renounce their existing citizenship before naturalising them.
But many countries that have such a policy have softened it recently. To cite again the example of Germany, there is now a facilitated naturalisation procedure for foreigners born on German territory (birth in Germany doesn’t automatically give birthright citizenship, it’s a jus sanguinis system rather than jus soli - meaning you need to descend from a citizen to get birthright citizenship); you can apply for permission to keep your German citizenship when applying for naturalisation elsewhere; and multiple citizenship with other EU countries is accepted without problems.
The US, then again, has no policy against multiple citizenship, so you can get naturalised elsewhere and US nationality law won’t care.
Then they aren’t naturalizing those people. Russia wasn’t refusing entry to American defectors at the height of the Cold War, or just putting them in camps.
“A country” that generally or strictly requires documentation for naturalization - the way Australia and the USA do - would handle “refugees, asylum seekers, and defectors” that do not have documentation the way that Australia and the USA do – by putting them in immigration detention.
During the cold war, Russia was, of course, refusing entry to people who tried to enter without documentation, and locking them up if they entered without documentation. In jails or immigration detention or whatever. It was never the case that you could turn up at a border post and just say “I’m defecting” and walk in. It didn’t stop policing it’s borders at any time during the cold war.
Australia, the US, and Russia have all naturalized refugees, asylum seekers, and (at least for the US and Russia) defectors at various times in the past, even though they didn’t (in many cases couldn’t) have a valid passport. If you’re going to deny that the US and USSR have ever naturalized a refugee, asylum seeker, and/or defector who didn’t have a valid passport you’re a bit far from any kind of rational discussion.
Putting someone in immigration detention doesn’t preclude the possibility of later granting them protection under the Refugee Convention, releasing them from detention, naturalising them or all of the above.
In general, if you turn up at the borders of a country seeking admission, they like you to have a valid passport from your home country so that they that they can, if they need to, send you back there, and you’ll be taken in.
That’s not so much of an issue if the country is contemplating naturalising you, because obviously if they do naturalise you they are not about to send you back to your country of origin, and they don’t need to be reassured that they can do that. Obviously there’s the hypothetical that, at some point in the future, your naturalisation might be revoked and they might want to deport you then, but possession of a valid passport from your country of origin now doesn’t provide much reassurance on that point since there is no reason to think that, by the time the hypothetical becomes a reality, your passport will still be valid. Most passports are time-limited, and in any case can be cancelled by the issuing government even within that time.
So, when it comes to naturalisation they will generally want to know your current citizenship, and they may want evidence of your current citizenship, and a passport is likely to be the most convenient and most commonly-used form of evidence. But there is no reason why it should be the only form of evidence accepted, and if there is a reason why you can’t produce a passport, well, your host country may be satisfied with other evidence on the matter of your current citizenship. Or they may decide that, even if you’re stateless, they are happy to naturalise you.
If you’re going to deny that they handled undocumented aliens by first putting them in detention, you’re a bit far from any kind of rational discussion.
But when I make statements, I don’t use straw man arguments like “have ever”.
nitpicking the nitpick, that is not actually true, the only other country that does it is Eritrea
The United States is one of two countries in the world that taxes its non-resident citizens on worldwide income, in the same manner and rates as residents; the other is Eritrea.
–From Wikipedia
And I understand your pain having to file from outside the US. I too experienced it for a number of years while living overseas.
As to the “softening” of rules regarding dual citizen ship, the case of Naomi Osaka was one that caused some stir in Japan in the hope of a change of the official rules. There, you are supposed to declare your citizenship when you turn 22, but there is no penalty for not giving up your other citizenship, which you’re supposed to “make an effort” to renounce. Here is a run down of that particular case:
I think she officially said she is now Japanese, but I don’t know that she renounced her American citizenship.
A friend of mine came to the US from Malaysia. Her parents were Chinese nationals, her siblings had Malaysian passports. She had no passport - she wasn’t born in China and Malaysia didn’t grant her a passport (I forget the reason). She was issued papers saying she was stateless when she arrived in the US, and didn’t get a citizenship anywhere until she was naturalized in the US at age 18.
He’s not eligible for the current mobilization, which applies only to those with previous Russian military service. (That’s most Russian men, since the country has long conscripted all 18- to 27-year-olds for 12 months of mandatory service, subject to certain exceptions. But Snowden’s only just now become a Russian citizen and is already older than 27.) Anyway, even if he were eligible, it’s doubtful that Putin would want him anywhere near the front lines. Snowden is far more politically valuable to him alive.
Putin probably thinks this is a stick in the eye to America. In reality, we’ve mostly forgotten Snowden and don’t give a shit that he’s not a Russian citizen.
I still have my father’s British, Canadian and US passports, and only his Canadian one was expired - but he was still a Canadian citizen, collecting Canada Pension and OAS while living in the USA.
I talked to one of my relatives who recently got their certification that they were, in fact, Canadian citizens - due to the fact that their mother was naturalized as a child and left Canada in the 1960’s before they were born. Not sure what all she was, she was born in Shanghai to a US father… Her grandchildren born before 2007 should theoretically be Canadian citizens. One chose not to apply, since he was concerned it would mess up his US security clearance, but I told his kids if they applied, they would qualify for Canadian university tuition rates, substantially lower. (Usually around $5,000US a year).
Eritrea is more direct. It threatens the family you left behind if you don’t pay their taxes. The American government only threatens you, your spouse, and any banks you do business with.
I would imagine that taxes for North Korea are irrelevant. If they get their hands on an ordinary citizen who had been living overseas, taxes would be the least of their troubles.
Same as for urgent travel when the passport is missing or lost.
Travel Papers.
Its basically just a certification that issuing country is authorising that person to travel from A to B to C… , and they should be travelling with passport-identified person X, and why they need to do this without passport or visa, and who to call to verify all this.
For the case of refugees/stateless people, the papers may explain that a passport could not be issued due to the identification issues (they aren’t perfectly sure of who the person is)… so they issue travel papers, so they can then be processed later on. Up to the destination country whether they go to detention or get let out. children (at least those with no parent/guardian? ) are let out of detention ?
I recall it was a thing in the news years ago, that some refugees arriving in Canada had destroy (flushed?) their passports on the flight. They needed the passport to board, but then had been told by others that it was harder for Canada to just send them back without a passport.
I guess as a result more details are captured at the time of boarding, making a missing passport less of an issue. Customs know what country to send the person back to if they don’t qualify.
Her grandchildren born before 2007 should theoretically be Canadian citizens. One chose not to apply, since he was concerned it would mess up his US security clearance, but I told his kids if they applied, they would qualify for Canadian university tuition rates, substantially lower. (Usually around $5,000US a year).