- FAQ
- Login
- Register
- Call Workpermit.com for a paid service +44 (0)344-991-9222
ESC
Welcome to immigrationboards.com!
Moderators: Casa, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, archigabe
It is far from unknown for naturalised citizens to have lesser political rights. What is true is that citizenship by naturalisation and citizenship by descent by registration currently differ only in the rights of retention and of transmission to descendants.
What do you mean by "lesser political rights"? Any "lesser" treatment (if proven) is considered discriminatory and is an offence. If you refer to the special case of dual nationals when in the country of their other nationality, that's a well known special circumstance which I wouldn't personally classify as "lesser political rights" and, if it really is a problem for the holder, this case is easily circumvented by renouncing the other citizenship(s) when possible.
Could you elaborate on "rights of retention"? Once granted, citizenship is not exactly easy to lose / revoke on a whim "just because".
A well-known example is that only 'natural born citizens' of the USA can be their president.AnotherUUID wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:57 pmWhat do you mean by "lesser political rights"? Any "lesser" treatment (if proven) is considered discriminatory and is an offence.
Recently a hundred British citizens a year have been losing British citizenship for intolerable misbehaviour, e.g. fighting for ISIS. For bad enough behaviour, someone who is only naturalised as British may be rendered stateless if it appears that they will be able to acquire some other citizenship. Someone who is British by some other route can only be deprived of British citizenship if they will not thereby be rendered de jure stateless. (The British courts have to interpret foreign laws - they are reluctant to believe other governments' assertions that some undesirable is not their citizen.)AnotherUUID wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:57 pmCould you elaborate on "rights of retention"? Once granted, citizenship is not exactly easy to lose / revoke on a whim "just because".
This is true in general, however, I do not see how this applies to the UK as I am not aware of any such policies applicable to British citizens in the UK.
I would consider these as edge case scenarios, usually involving fairly radical behaviour on behalf of the person. If a person is getting involved into acts of terrorism and the like, I feel losing their citizenship isn't exactly at the top of their priorities list.Richard W wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2020 7:26 pmRecently a hundred British citizens a year have been losing British citizenship for intolerable misbehaviour, e.g. fighting for ISIS. For bad enough behaviour, someone who is only naturalised as British may be rendered stateless if it appears that they will be able to acquire some other citizenship. Someone who is British by some other route can only be deprived of British citizenship if they will not thereby be rendered de jure stateless. (The British courts have to interpret foreign laws - they are reluctant to believe other governments' assertions that some undesirable is not their citizen.)
Well, that's more privilege than a right, considering that there is also an age requirement, which also disqualifies a bunch of people and make them unequal. Holding a political title is not right per se, because there are a lot of them that requires some sort of qualification.A well-known example is that only 'natural born citizens' of the USA can be their president.
Acquisition of citizenddship by registration is not retroactive. There is a significant difference between establishing that one is a citizen and acquiring citizenship. If one is in fact (albeit unestablishedly) already a citizen by descent, one cannot upgrade (at least as far as transmission is concerned) by naturalising as a British citizen.