Talk:Multiple citizenship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World record[edit]

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)[reply]

I would like to know this too. I wrote a blog post about this. The highest I could figure as a theoretically feasible number, without naturalization, is 9ish (depending on if you count Commonwealth/EU as separate):
  • parents: one each of different multi-nationality-ok countries (e.g. American & Canadian)
  • one grandparent Jewish
  • one grandparent Italian
  • one great-grandparent Cherokee
  • place of birth: Isle of Ireland, UK
Child's citizenships (9): American, Canadian, Cherokee, UK, Irish, Italian, Commonwealth, & EU; full Israeli after 1yr residency
That freak's children could have 13:
  • parent 1: the kid above (9)
  • parent 2: born in Taiwan, parents a) Russian and b) Romania-living ethnic German (4)
Child's citizenships (13): American, Canadian, Cherokee, UK, Irish, Italian, Commonwealth, EU, Israeli, Chinese, Russian, Romanian & German O.o
Of course this is, to say the least, an extremely implausible scenario. My guess is that ~5 is plausibly achievable. Sai Emrys ¿?✍ 05:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barring countries that won't allow multiple citizenships, why would there be an upper limit at all? Aren't citizenships cumulative? Even without counting naturalization, if parents have multiple citizenships, the children would inherit *all* of them, right? 223.134.103.42 (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the children would inherit *all* of them, right?" Not necessarily. Nationality laws usually do allow for transmission of citizenship to the born-abroad children of nationals, but it's not uncommon for residency provisions to apply. For instance, I'm an American citizen currently living in New Zealand, and any children I have in NZ will inherit US citizenship from me. However, my hypothetical children will not be able to pass US citizenship to the next generation unless they spend some time living in the United States. Some nations do allow transmission of citizenship through multiple generations abroad, usually based on a national ethnicity, but this is far from universal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.208.161 (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this in passing, and would comment that the examples which come immediately to mind follow the general rule that the child of a citizen is a citizen (there is some oversimplification there, but not much); that child being a citizen, children of that citizen are citizens; and so on in succeeding generations. Examples which I'm sure of are the U.S. and the Philippines (both of which had stiffer requirements in the not-too-distant past); there are probably lots of other examples. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been any new source about "recordman"ship of multiple nationalities (number thereof)? Have famous people been tagged in Wikipedia with a, for instance, Category:Multiple nationalities holder ? Bouzinac (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REMOVAL[edit]

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)[reply]

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.

---

Germany: Current German nationality law (1999, eff. 2000) revised Germany's stance on dual nationality. It is anyway affected by Allied Control Council (Kommandatura), by its Law No. 1 of 20 September 1945 abrogating Nazi racial laws. To this day, Jews with German grandparents, given the right facts, can obtain a German (or, for that matter, an Austrian) passport. Also: one can keep German nationality upon naturalization in the USA if one can show an economic advantage: typically the discriminatory effect of estate taxation where there is a foreign spouse (QDOT, etc.) It is in such cases that "permission" is granted. There remains a "racial" connection to German law on dual nationality since with a German parent rights seem to be greater. German nationality law#Dual citizenship

Spain: The relationship between Spanish nationality and PR citizenship (before the reader contests that word, read on) is (or was, everybody impacted is now dead) was controlled by the Treaty of Paris under which PR was ceded to the USA. Certain persons could and did retain Spanish, and did not get American, citizenship by election. There is an interesting question on the difference between Constitutional (i.e. 14th Amendment citizenship -- reflecting the fact that "citizenship" in the USA is not after all "nationality" but "allegiance" (as in Pledge of) because taken from English Common Law). Persons born or naturalized in US territories or born abroad to US citizens (assuming in the latter case relevant US residence/presence as the case may be) are "statutory" and not "constitutional" citizens. The significance is this: if Puerto Rico gains independence, can they be deprived of US citizenship? We could look to the Philippines except that Filipinos were never citizens, they were protégés; or the status of Native Americans before they were made citizens (but their status was different and supposedly protected by the Jay Treaty and other laws). But PR citizens are still different from the rest. Under the Organic Act and other law, if resident in PR they are not subject to US income tax or estate duty on PR income/assets. They pay a mirror tax. That is different from VI and other territorial citizens and noncitizen nationals. (I have checked this point with the IRS PR specialist in Washington DC.)

The cases of individuals resident on US territory in a situation of cession is subject to treaty protection. See: Treaty to Resolve Pending Boundary Differences and Maintain the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the International Boundary, 23 Nov. 1970, TIAS 7313, 23 UST 371, Art. VI, § B. A discussion of treaties ceding U.S. territory appears in the dissenting opinion of MacKinnon, J. in Edwards v. Carter, 580 F.2d 1055; 189 U.S. App. D.C. 1 (1978).

I'm too slothful to change Wiki articles written by others, but editors may find the above useful. Andygx (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

PLEASE remove or reformulate? I doubt that: "Spain has dual citizenship treaties with [...] Puerto Rico[not in citation given]", since Puerto Rico, due to its political status regarding the US has no soverignity in such matters and there is no such thing as a Puertorican citizenship, Puertoricans are holders of Us citizenship. 89.247.39.171 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Luna[reply]

You're probably right that the situation re Spanish citizenship for PR residents does not fall under a treaty arrangement, and the article cites no source to support an assertion that it does. I have reworded that part of the article slightly to remove this assertion. Re PR citizenship, see the Puerto Rican citizenship article; this is also discussed briefly in this article, under Subnational citizenship. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greece[edit]

According to this article: 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)

Israel[edit]

"Example 17: A Jewish person, or a person with at least one Jewish grandparent, or a person who converts to Judaism, who makes aliyah to Israel will be an Israeli citizen in addition to their original citizenship, by operation of the Law of Return. For example, a Jewish person born in South Africa to British parents will be South African by birth, British by descent and Israeli on aliyah. Israeli citizenship is bestowed three months after aliyah and a full Israeli passport is issued after one year's residency."

Per the Rufeisen decision, this may not apply to someone who has converted from Judaism to another religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.198.120 (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries not permitting multiple citizenship[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Isn't this best addressed with the nationality law article for each specific country? JAJ 00:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

This doesn't make sense. A country cannot by itself "not permit" multiple citizenship, because multiple citizenship arises as a result of the laws of multiple countries. A country can only control whether someone is that country's citizen; it has no control over who is another country's citizen. Therefore, if a country wishes for it to not be possible that a person holds that country's citizenship at the same time as another country's, it must write the rules for its nationality law such that, when a person has another country's citizenship, they cannot have that country's citizenship. It must cover all the cases, e.g. even for babies at birth. --24.130.148.132 (talk) 08:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That point being understood, I think such a list article would be useful. I would suggest that the topic be generalized a bit to something like List of countries by citizenship policy. The list could present a table similar to the List of sovereign states article, and could be defined as presenting information on states named in that article (thus simplifying inclusion criteria). Table rows would be the same as in the that article, with columns for
  • Country name
  • Birthright citizenship (yes or no, with individual clarification as needed)
  • Naturalization (summary of requirements)
  • Withdrawal (summary of conditions, one of which in some cases would be voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship)
  • Perhaps the article should be List of countries by citizenship and immigration policy with a column for Immigration and sub-columns
  • Temporary, summarizing policy on such things as visa on arrival policy, length of stay restrictions, etc.
  • Permanent, summarizing policy on granting permanent resident status
  • More?
There would be lots of links to outside sources for support of article info and for access to sources of additional info.
This could be a lot of work to put together, and it would need maintenance -- without checking, I recall that the policies of Australia and the Philippines on withdrawal of citizenship have changed in the fairly recent past -- probably other countries as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, provided as much as possible (preferably all) of the information is reliably sourced. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This issue ("permitting" or not multiple nationality) and indeed the causes of multiple nationality are so complex that "listing" is almost irrelevant. A number of countries make it difficult, virtually impossible, to retain their nationality along with another after majority. Japan and the Baltic states come to mind. (But see http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/analytics/?doc=86849 , anything can change in a few minutes.) A number of others have racial or religious issues: Liberia and Israel come to mind. Many make it possible for descendants at least to the third (grandchild) generation to acquire the nationality of the grandparent: Switzerland, Ireland perhaps Italy. Spain has just produced a bill to allow Sephardic Jews expedited naturalisation. Greece's notorious (and now abrogated) Article 19 used to facilitate denaturalisation of Muslims and Slavs. Otherwise Greek nationality was difficult to renounce (and during the Vietnam war not a few Greek-Americans went there, got drafted, and avoided the US draft (although I've never been able to find a NATO treaty or legal provision preventing the two countries from drafting the same person). For what it's worth, my PhD dissertation was on this subject. And it's hard for me to imagine anyone doing a fair job of explaining it in just a few pages. Andygx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

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)[reply]
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)

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

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)[reply]

"State citizenship" of a US state equates to "domicile". Domicile under US state law is not the same as that under English (or other legal systems derived from English law). In re Estate of Jones (a man who died aboard the Lusitania) is the classical comparison studied in American conflict-of-law courses http://www.uniset.ca/other/css/182NW227.html There are issues about who can acquire domicile and it seems that legal residence in accordance with US immigration law is not required. Andygx (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map is Incorrect[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
* 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Netherlands allows multiple citizenship as well...

Yes, but unless you qualify for an exception, acquiring of your own volition a foreign citizenship will cost you your Dutch one.ThW5 (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poland does not deal with the issue of dual citizenship, but possession of another citizenship is tolerated since there are no penalties for its possession alone. This is incorrect. Polish Citizenship Act of 2 April 2009 Article 3. 1 "A Polish citizen at the same time holding the citizenship of another country has the same rights and obligations in respect to the Republic of Poland as the person who has only Polish citizenship. 2. A Polish citizen cannot rely with a legal effect vis-à-vis the authorities of the Republic of Poland on a simultaneously held citizenship of another country and on the rights and obligations resulting thereof." (Ustawa z 2 kwietnia 2009 r. o obywatelstwie polskim, Polish Citizenship Act of 2 April 2009) Pilot Pirx (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK/US citizenship[edit]

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)[reply]

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)

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Canada's Governor General Edit[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 the map[edit]

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)[reply]

--- 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)[reply]

It is clear that the map is wrong in several instances. I believe the data for Venezuela is also wrong. It is clear from points 11(1) to 11(3) that Spain does accept dual citzenship in certain cases. Should an extra color be added on the map to indicate those countries that have partial dual citizenship treaties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.106.135 (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina[edit]

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.

The Sub-national citizenship section[edit]

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)[reply]
Agree, this is overly long and not of interest here. It should be in an article on the U.S. instead.

Germany and Age Limitation[edit]

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)[reply]

Examples[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I agree that the examples section is useful but I wonder if it is getting a bit out of hand again. As it is an examples section, it is not necessary for it to be too exhaustive: it is intended to be part of an encyclopaedia article, not to be a discussion in an exhaustive textbook on the interaction of national citizenship laws. I realise that the list of examples is nothing like exhaustive, but is it helpful in its present form? Ondewelle (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's getting out of hand again after 1 year i've made my last comment. Someone needs to review each one and compare with the rest. Or even combine multiple examples to make a single case where multiple issues are dealt with. --Kvasir (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(a) I also wonder about the full accuracy of some of the examples. For example, example 17, about a Jewish person moving to Israel, states that such a person "will be an Israeli citizen in addition to their original citizenship" — but this can depend on the citizenship laws of their other country: he or she may no longer be a citizen of that country if its laws do not allow its citizens to hold any other citizenship. The fact that the person might not have intended that to happen (and may not even realise that the citizenship has been lost) may be irrelevant.
(b) I think (as Kvasir says) that there are other examples that similarly don't give quite the full story. I guess what is needed is a broad consensus of the types of situations in which a person can be, or become, a dual or multiple citizen, and then a decision to be made about which specific "stories" can best be used to exemplify these situation. I think it also needs to be accepted that not every conceivable scenario and nuance can be exemplified.
(c) I also worry that with so many examples, it is likely that some of them will go out of date as a result of changes in various national laws or regulations and no one will notice. Ondewelle (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spain[edit]

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)[reply]

Passports[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

After all that theorizing, a practical example. I hold both Canadian and Hungarian citizenships and have both passports. When entering Canada I use my Canadian passport. When entering Hungary (well actually now when entering anywhere in the EU) I use my Hungarian passport. Actually, I don't really need the Hungarian passport at all, my Hungarian ID card would serve just as well to get me into any EU country.kovesp (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Overseas Citizenship of India[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Example 14[edit]

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):

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)[reply]

"In the United States, dual citizenship is not very common among politicians"[edit]

Is it not the case that a large number of people in the Bush administration hold dual US/Israeli citizenship? Obviously, that's because (as discussed elsewhere in the article), the Israeli concept of citizenship is unique, but it still makes the above statement questionable.

I'm aware Israel and Zionism are contentious subjects(!), so any mention of this needs to be discreet :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgazz (talk • contribs) 12:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have the people in question actually become citizens of Israel by formally immigrating to Israel under the provisions of the Law of Return? Or are you asserting that the people in question are dual US/Israeli citizens because they are Jews? It needs to be kept very clear that merely being Jewish does not confer automatic Israeli citizenship on someone who was not born in Israel, does not have an Israeli parent, and has never settled permanently in Israel. So if someone is suggesting that every American Jew is, by definition, a dual US/Israeli citizen, that's simply not correct. Richwales (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right - being Jewish does not confer Israeli Citizenship automatically. But I'd been led to believe that a number of US Government figures (Richard Perle, John Bolton, Scooter Libby) actually held Israeli passports, having presumably applied via the Law of Return. It could be that people are confusing the two - I'm not convinced that the USA would be keen on allowing a number dual-nationality citizens to hold senior government posts, even if they are citizens of an ally. More rearch needed I think. McGazz (talk) 09:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my understanding, in order for a person to acquire Israeli citizenship via the Law of Return, they actually have to move to Israel with the intention of making their home in that country.
I read the Wikipedia articles on Richard Perle, John R. Bolton, and Lewis Libby just now, and while all three gentlemen have demonstrated strong support for Israel, there was no mention of any of them having (or ever having had) Israeli citizenship. The closest I found to any such assertion was a comment that Richard Perle has a sister living in Israel.
Although current US law and State Dept. policy are quite permissive regarding dual US/other citizenship, it's very difficult to get a security clearance in the US if one is actively exercising a second citizenship (such as by holding an unexpired foreign passport), even if the other country is friendly to the US. I would be extremely skeptical of any claim that a high-ranking US government official held a current passport from any country other than the US. If there are any exceptions to this generalization, we ought to insist on reliable sources for the information. Richwales (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

A table (either on this page, or another page) may be useful in demonstrating which countries allow dual citizenship (through either permission by law or omission of any law making it illegal) and with what countries they may allow it, as well as any restrictions they place on that. For example a child born to a Korean parent and a foreign parent can be allowed to have dual citizenship until they are 21 years of age, but at 21 under korean law they must choose one of the them. I'm not sure if a country may for example allow dual citizenship with any country, but then state, countries x, y, z are not permitted.--Crossmr (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exampel 7 has typo somewhere[edit]

first sentence says father's nationality (US) is automatically acquired. second sentence says US citizenship may be acquired. someone please fix this.

I've edited Example 7. My edit results in substantive change. I'm not nationality law expert, and welcome any needful corrections. Having done this edit, I observe that Example 7 does not really relate to multiple citizenship; it relates to the application of the separate and differing nationality laws of several nations in a particular exceptional circumstance. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Americans who served in the French Foreign Legion?[edit]

According to Wikipedia's article on the French Foreign Legion, any non-Frenchman who serves a six-year term as a legionnaire is entitled to French citizenship after being honorably discharged from the Legion. I know some Americans have served. So I ask: if an American is honorably discharged from the French Foreign Legion after six years, and opts to accept the offer of French citizenship, does he automatically lose his US citizenship? Or does he become a dual citizen of the US and France? Tom129.93.65.41 (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP is not a Q&A service and this talk page is not a blog. However, responding, as far as the US is concerned such a person would remain a US citizen. The status of his French citizenship would be determined by French law. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For some further clarification, see the U.S. State Department web page titled "Advice about Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Foreign Military Service". The key consideration appears to be whether the person in question enlisted in the foreign military service, subscribing to whatever oaths that involved, ".. with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship", or whether that person "... serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer."
Reading a bit further down on that that State Department web page:

Military service in foreign countries usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking. In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish citizenship. Voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.



Pursuant to Section 351(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person who served in foreign armed forces while under the age of eighteen is not considered subject to the provisions of Section 349(a)(3) if, within six months of attaining the age of eighteen, he or she asserts a claim to United States citizenship in the manner prescribed by the Secretary of State.

Also, stretching a bit, if the enlistment was accomplished while the U.S. citizen enlistee was located in the U.S., see 18 U.S.C. § 959, "Enlistment in foreign service", and 18 U.S.C. § 960, "Expedition against friendly nation".
Disclaimer: I am not qualified to dispense legal advise, neither being licensed to practice law nor having played a lawyer on TV.
Finally, you might be interested in looking at the French Foreign Legion and List of Foreign Legionnaires articles. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free encyclopedic public domain source (CRS report)[edit]

I'm adding Congress's CRS reports to their relevant pages, since they're so thorough and you can just copy-and-paste the content ... here's yours: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_DUAL_CITIZENSHIP%2C_October_1%2C_1998

By the way, this page is going to need a split for dual citizenship (United States), IMHO. That sounds a tad silly, but maybe we'll have an infobox/template with all the countries in it, appearing on the page of every country's "dual citizenship" article. (eventually.) Agradman talk/contribs 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall this as a revert I did while doing vandal patrol with [[WP:Huggle}}. I may have mistaken the edit I reverted for an edit of a mainspace article, (I had set up Huggle to queue only edits to mainspace articles). Whether the link is in talkspace or mainspace, however, I find that clicking the link above brings up a plea from wikileaks for donations. It looks like spam to me. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's spam. I had not gotten the donation request you're referring to, instead I got taken to a page with a link to the PD article. Tonight, though, I am getting the solicitation. I think when Wikileaks' servers are overloaded, they put up the begging response. But in ordinary times, this leads to a highly relevant public-domain CRS publication on multiple citizenship. BTW, FAS.ORG is another good resource for CRS pubs. TJRC (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Agradman explained on my talk page here that the "error" page I was seeing which asked for donations to wikileak reflected the fact that Wikilinks on wikilink were experiencing some downtime. At the time of the explanation, my clicks on the external link above still navigated me to a page asking for donations. As of now, it navigates me to a page on wikileaks which contains a wikilink offering to download a PDF copy of the report. I think that the link is useful and probably ought to be mentioned in the article if it continues to allow downloading of the report. If it navigates to a page requesting donations to wikileak, I think it ought to be considered spam. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different issue, and I agree with the general principle that we shouldn't have an external link to a site that does not have consistent availability. But this was an edit to the Talk page, not to the article, to make other editors aware of the CRS report, so they can use its contents as a resource to develop the article. That's a legitimate talk page comment. TJRC (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not a link is considered spam is one thing; whether and under what circumstances spam links are acceptable on talk pages is another. Inconsistent availability is one thing; redirection of links targeting unavailable pages to an alternative page which solicits donations is another. As I said earlier, I may have mistaken the edit I reverted for an edit of a mainspace article. I have no problem with the link appearing here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The link to Wikileaks above now forwards to a Wikileaks mirror's main page, where the search function does not work, so this CRS report is no longer locable. I found a serviceable if somewhat ugly HTMLized copy at [10]. TJRC (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the original PDF at [11]. TJRC (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

connfused by the lead[edit]

"Colloquial speech refers to humans "holding" multiple citizenship but technically each nation is making a claim that this person be considered its national. For this reason it is possible that a person be a citizen of one, none or many countries."

The first sentence (above) doesn't make much sense to me. What's the distinction? Agradman talk/contribs 06:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late on the reply, but I think the point being made is that the individual does not "hold" the citizenship rather the nation "holds" the individual as a national. --Khajidha (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples section[edit]

It's way too long and full of obscure corner cases. Since Wikipedia is not a guide book or an indiscriminate collection of information it should be trimmed down or removed. Someidiot (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EB-5 Visa[edit]

This edit, with an edit summary saying that you cannot buy an US Citizenship, popped up on my watchlist. Correct, AFAICT, and the assertion that this can be done is not supported by the source cited in the article. However, a path to U.S. citizenship can be purchased — through participation in the EB-5 visa program. That is US-specific, though, and not directly/immediately related to the article topic. It may or may not be appropriate to mention that info in this article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you pointed out, holding a visa is different from holding a citizenship. Therefore, this interesting fact has no place here. Tomeasy T C 07:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Germany part 2[edit]

In contrast to what is mentioned in the beginning of the article, Germany DOES allow dual citizens (I am one, with US citizenship as well) in certain situations. In my case, it is because of a law in Germany that allows descendants of those who lost citizenship in the Third Reich to recover citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.142.79.254 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but the principle in Germany still is no multiple citizenship - with several exemption 12:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.242.173 (talk)

Negative effects?[edit]

"A 2007 US study confirmed the negative effect of dual citizenship in the United States on assimilation and political connectedness for first generation Latino immigrants finding that dual nationals are: 32% less likely to be fluent in English, [...]" -- Wouldn't correlation does not imply causation be applicable here? I'm not sure why this article was cited here, because it seems to me that it has confirmed squat... - 219.79.122.178 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The source is all about correlation, simply. However, the source itself makes the claim of negative effect. I think we should at least distance ourselves from this claim, if we want to report it. E.g., by substituting "confirmed" with "alleges". Tomeasy T C 19:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps: "A 2007 US study concluded that dual citizenship in the United States had a negative effect on assimilation and political connectedness for first generation Latino immigrants..." Patapsco913 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

where is the MAP[edit]

Why was the map removed.graphical representation would be much easier to understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.44.161 (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple citizenship of Irish politicians[edit]

I've moved the following text here from the article:

A breaking controversy in the Irish Presidential Elections 2011 surrounds the citizenship of one of the candidates, Ms Dana Rosemary Scallon, who is a naturalised US citizen and therefore may be disqualified from her canddidacy on grounds that the Irish Constitution requires the President of Ireland to be an Irish citizen, something a naturalised US citizen cannot legally be under US law.

It is unsupported, and appears to be at least partially erroneous. My understanding is that there is no problem in U.S. law with a naturalized U.S. citizen holding other citizenships. The U.S. naturalization process requires the taking of an oath renouncing other allegiences; however, the effect of taking such an oath on other citizenships held is not determined by U.S. law. Rather, it would be determined by the law of the countries where other citizenships are held. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia and Singapore[edit]

I wonder if another category is needed. I believe Malaysia and Singapore are fairly similar. A child is allowed to hold dual citizenship up to a certain age (21 in Malaysia, 22 in Singapore). An adult cannot hold dual citizenship and if the authorities find out policy is either you renounce your other citizenship/s or it will be removed (although in Malaysia I believe they sometimes don't really give you the option of renouncing it). However it isn't automatic. The constitution of Malaysia simply says your citizenship may be removed if you have dual citizenship and so the government does need to go thru a process to revoke your citizenship. Not an RS but see [12]. I considered moving this to 'possible' but IMO possible isn't strong enough. It seems to suggest it may happen but it's not guaranteed, whereas with Malaysia and I believe Singapore it's pretty much guaranteed you will lose your citizenship if it's found you have multiple citizenship, it's simply that it's not automatic under law. Oh and Malaysia also has subnational citizenship with migration to East Malaysia limited [13]. (I'm lazy to add sources and I dislike adding something without sources so won't be adding it for now.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to just move Malaysia. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entitlement to Irish citizenship[edit]

I have amended this section to read 'Conversely, that such a person has not acted in this way does not necessarily mean that they are not *entitled to be* an Irish citizen.' See Irish nationality law - at birth and sources cited therein.

Alekksandr (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real Possibility[edit]

I have a friend which was born in US and than moved to Kuwait. His father is Turkish and his mother is Turkish Cypriot. So he is eligible to hold USA, Kuwait, Turkey, Cyprus and North Cyprus citizenships. But he only holds Turkey and USA passports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.142.141.25 (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Czech/Slovak Citizenship - Incorrect Date[edit]

I noticed that in the section detailing exceptions to the automatic loss of Czech citizenship, the relevant date is listed as "September 31, 1992". September only has 30 days. Is the correct date September 30 or December 31 or something else? 1.127.255.247 (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an impossible date was chosen to make "before" vs "after" unambiguous? —Tamfang (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sue v Hill[edit]

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, Australian or otherwise, nor have I ever played one on TV (small joke there).

This edit, adding some detail re the Sue v Hill case in Australia, caught my eye. The edit relied on this previously cited source. The added content seems entirely reasonable, but I am unable to find support for it in the cited source. Am I missing something? Is this WP:original research? Does this need clarification and/or another supporting cite? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was the one who edited the previous section about Sue v Hill. The IP will probably be different as I use a mobile broadband device in Australia and the IP address changes each time. It so happens that I am a lawyer and this was one of my favourite cases from law school, particularly as I hold a non-Australian citizenship. The findings in Sue v Hill which I added were taken from my Australian Public Law course. In the judgement, at [176], the High Court ruled that if a person holds dual citizenship they must take reasonable steps to renounce it, the implication flowing from that is that unreasonable steps will not be required or if reasonable steps have been taken and that the citizenship has not been revoked by the other country, for whatever reason, then that person will still be allowed to sit in Parliament. As far as I know, no one has ever had to challenge their election based on the steps to renunciation being unreasonable. I hope that answers the question. If required by Wikipedia policies, I'll try to provide a more to the point reference from a law text. 1.126.85.73 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that in the ruling at what you call "[176]", now that you've led me by the nose to it. I also see at "[104]" that Hill had taken steps to renounce her British citizenship. Those steps, however, were taken subsequent to her election victory -- not soon enough to prevent the problem situation. This level of detail (more than is presented in the Sue v Hill article) seems misplaced here in this article (see WP:SYNC). The Sue v Hill article might benefit from inclusion of some detail there re "[104]" and "[176]", and info re "[176]" then would fit better here. I might try to add that, but my efforts would probably be ham-handed (what ought "[104]" and "[176]" be called, anyhow? Notes? Footnotes? Something else?). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Hill had taken steps to renounce her other citizenship but they were deemed not reasonable steps and so her election was invalid, though not the entire election. The other candidates were allowed to have their preferences (Australia uses a preferential voting system) redistributed. I think it turns out that the other One Nation candidate won anyway. To answer your question, when giving pinpoint references for cases the convention is to use "[x]". Those individual sections are called "paragraphs". So, when citing a case, you would speak, " In Sue and Hill at paragraph 176" but written it would appear as, "In Sue v Hill at [176]". 1.127.42.153 (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Following on this exchange and in consideration of WP:SYNC, I'm adding a section at Sue v Hill#Hill's renunciation. I've referred to the relevant paragraphs as paragraph nnn, as the decision contains other items identified therein as [nnn] which match the relevant paragraph numbers. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship and tax liability[edit]

I've removed an assertion saying "Only two countries base taxation on citizenship: the United States and Eritrea" from the article. this source was cited in support, and tagged {{verify credibility}}. I don't know about the reliability of that source, but (1) I was unable to confirm support of that assertion at the cited URL, and (2) The Philippines taxes its overseas citizens (see [14]). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the captioned statement to be more accurate and specific: "Only two countries tax their non-resident citizens on foreign income", cited to a more reliable source (renunciationguide.com was a WP:SPS that has since disappeared). The Philippines, like most countries, uses source-based taxation for all non-residents, differing only in the tax rate applied to citizens vs. non-citizens. As your link states: "Nonresident citizen - taxed similarly as a resident citizen on incomes from sources within the Philippines." Thanks, quant18 (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a US born citizen I worked for a local company in the Republic of South Africa and knew I should file my US tax forms. When I contacted the US Embassy for the papers they asked how much I was earning. It was so little they said it would cost more to process the forms then I'd have to pay so do not bother filing. 2601:645:300:9C74:F455:9B0D:287A:4AEB (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you got that in writing! —Tamfang (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone interested might look at the IRS publication Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entire overseas taxation issue is, as far as I can tell, entirely irrelevant to multiple citizenship, as it applies equally to any overseas citizen, regardless of whether the person has citizenship in another country. Paul Richter (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might apply equally to any overseas citizen if you're looking at from the viewpoint of a citizen of some particular country (e.g., the U.S.), but the details of how it applies varies when looked at from a wider viewpoint. See the table in International taxation#Taxation systems. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple citizenship ≠ dual citizenship[edit]

"Multiple citizenship, also called dual citizenship ..." begins the article but this isn't right, dual is two but multiple can be more. Jimp 08:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary multiple citizenship[edit]

I have added "United States of America" to list of "very difficult/humiliating/expensive renunciation processes". Reasons: 1) Fee for renunciation is now $2350 per person, easily $10,000 or more for a family, and 2) the US has ambushed several million "US persons" living outside the US who are "accidental" Americans. That is, they are citizens of another country who have acquired US citizenship inadvertently, e.g. when their parents were temporarily living in the US. Some Canadians have been born in US border hospitals due to medical emergency. The US is demanding that these individuals, mostly people who had no idea they were "Americans", pay minimum 28% of their (criminal) "foreign" financial assets or face penalties in excess of 100%. In order to renounce US citizenship, they must file taxes and pay all penalties assessed by the IRS and US Treasury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.192.149 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More specific language[edit]

The article text should be improved where it uses the terms 'state', 'country' and 'nation' interchangeably. They refer to separate and different notions. --62.16.186.44 (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Island[edit]

The arrangements surrounding Norfolk Island have completely changed recently, though I am unsure to what effect. Can someone double check that a separate NI 'citizenship' still exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Multiple citizenship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple citizenship avoided[edit]

I've edited the list item Possible (but not automatic) loss of citizenship as follows:

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map removal[edit]

Apart that this version of the map does not include disputed European territories (e.g. Kosovo, Northern Cyprus etc) and new countries (e.g. South Sudan), it’s incomplete (e.g. Serbia (Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, II Acquiring of citizenship by admission, C)), Albania (Article 3), Macedonia (Article 2) allow dual citizenship), it’s inaccurate (e.g. Germany allows dual citizenship on conditions (Germany ([15], [16], [17], [18]), and the map does not correspond with the text (e.g. appears Greece, Austria, and Germany as not allowing it, while text says –rightly–otherwise).

But the major problem is that while most of the (at least European) countries do allow a future citizen to retain the old citizenship, or allow own citizens to acquire a new citizenship ex lege, some of them do not allow own citizens to obtain another citizenship by will, before they renounce their citizenship (or automatically lose it).

In order for this map to be accurate, it must include more legends, e.g.:

  1. dual citizenship both ways – countries that allow a person wanting to become citizen not to relinquish prior citizenship, and a citizen want to acquire another citizenship, to retain the citizenship of his country
  2. dual citizenship only ex lege – countries that allow a citizen acquire a citizenship of another country that is entitled ex lege, but would not allow a citizen to acquire willingly another citizenship before relinquishing his / her citizenship
  3. only allow the citizenship of the country no matter what
  4. limited to certain countries
  5. Striped legend for conditions – that is, where there are conditions under which something is allowed or not allowed.

Or something like that. Actually, because only few countries (I don’t know, if any?) allow only the country’s citizenship NO MATTER WHAT, we can start by finding them and add them to the map as red. Then, find the countries that (again I don’t know if any) allows dual citizenship again no matter what (except of course of fraud, law violation etc), and add them with green. And stop there, because all the other countries in world would allow dual citizenship one way or another. Wolfymoza (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality of writing[edit]

I find that this article is difficult to extract country-specific information from, because the text is not laid out in a clear manner, the information provided is not consistent between countries, and much of it is ambiguous and/or written in a 'chatty' style. I would suggest that the entire article needs to be re-written as well as laid out differently. There should also be included a table summarising the situation (multiple citizenship allowed vs. not) by country, for ease of reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.131.57 (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Multiple citizenship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Americas / USA / WHEN?[edit]

There must be a specific year linked to the recognition of dual citizenship in the USA, because it did not exist in the 1950's or 60's or 70's, in other words, for the first approximate 200 years of the country's existence. This would have required a specific act of Congress to change the existing law, which could be cited in this article.Starhistory22 (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that you've got that wrong.
  • Can you support your assertion above that it did not exist in the 1950's or 60's or 70's? If a citizen of another country became (or, now, becomes) a naturalized U.S. citizen, the U.S. requires the taking of an oath which begins, "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; ..." (see Oath of Allegiance (United States)). However, taking that oath does not have the effect of invalidating foreign citizenship(s).
  • You say, "[Allowing dual citizenship] would have required a specific act of Congress to change the existing law". Are you referring to some particular existing law there (if so, which particular law?), or are you simply presuming that such a law must have existed?

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the loss of U.S. citizenship status properly acquired, see e.g., http://www.americanlaw.com/dualcit.html. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Neutrality of "Effects and potential issues" section[edit]

A marker has been placed on the "National cohesiveness" section of "Effects and potential issues" questioning its neutrality. However I can't seem to find any significant discussion on this here.

In my view at least this section isn't written neutrally and I am unsure why it needs to exist at all.

108.50.198.68 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germany 2024 changes[edit]

Germany's Bundesrat approved an amendment to the Nationality Act on January 19, 2024 that, relevant to this article, undoes the ban on dual citizenship.

Technically it hasn't taken effect yet - nobody knows for sure when it will, but smart money is on June or July 2024 - but when it does, the information on Germany will become out of date. Cyversch (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multiple_citizenship&oldid=1209373528"