Ar

That must be real new!! A friend of mine was studying in Germany about 2 years ago. A
week after the baby was born, the German authorities sent them a letter saying
"Congratulations, just remember you need to register your son with the Consulate of
your home country. He cannot claim german citizenship"... AR

"Des" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Germany's immigration laws have changed. As far as I know, if a child of foriegn
    > citizens living in Germany is born there today, it can claim citizenship.
    >
    > - Des
    >
    > > Yes, of course. Almost every country in the world does it that way (notable
    > > exceptions are Germany, Kuwait, Russia, and probably a few others I don't know
    > > about).

Andy Platt

"AR" <[email protected]> wrote...

    > That must be real new!! A friend of mine was studying in Germany about 2 years ago.
    > A week after the baby was born, the German authorities sent
them
    > a letter saying "Congratulations, just remember you need to register your son with
    > the Consulate of your home country. He cannot claim german citizenship"...

Studying wouldn't count. I think, but I'm not sure, that it's the same as the UK now
- one of the parents has to be a permanent resident in Germany for the child to be
eligible for German citizenship. The previous law was so strict that there were third
generation people living in Germany who were not themselves German citizens!!!

Andy.

--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.

Nan Scott

"Ingo Pakleppa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 17:19:15 -0700, James Donovan wrote:
    >
    > > "DJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:<[email protected]>...
    > >
    > >> I feel they are on the same level. The US has many advantages over Canada, but
    > >> the reverse is also true, Canada has advantages over the US in other areas (free
    > >> medical care for example).
    > >
    > > I make enough US dollars to make free health care a moot point. So do many other
    > > Americans. Health insurance in the USA is cheap for most people, and subsidized
    > > for low income families.
    >
    > Huh? US health care is the most expensive in the world, and there are about 40
    > million uninsured people who make too much money to qualify for the subsidized
    > health care that you mention. Did you ever check out how much a health insurance
    > policy costs if the employer doesn't provide it? You can easily spend several
    > hundred dollars on it, often more than people spend on rent (OK, not here in
    > expensive California, but in other parts of the country).
    >
    > The only good point about US health care is that it also is the highest quality in
    > the world.

And how much cheaper would it be if we were not, through both our taxes and increased
hospital costs that our insurers pay, subsidizing health care for illegal aliens who
come here without the means to pay their health care and other costs?

mdeveaux

Incorrect, it depends on the airline, British Airways won't fly you after 7 months, but Air France has no limits. My sister got herself knocked up and said she couldn't come to our wedding until I pointed out AF policy to her.

Lb

On 7 Jul 2002 20:28:04 -0700, [email protected] (James Donovan) wrote:

    >I am sorry, I tend to disagree with you. People often flee to the US in the hope
    >that they can live in the land of milk and honey. We have far too many economic
    >refugees here.

But...isnt it the history of this country? people from ireland, italy, etc. came to
the new world for hope that they can live better life?

-lb

Dj

"James Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "DJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > > I feel they are on the same level. The US has many advantages over
Canada,
    > > but the reverse is also true, Canada has advantages over the US in other
    > > areas (free
medical
    > > care for example).
    >
    > I make enough US dollars to make free health care a moot point. So do many other
    > Americans. Health insurance in the USA is cheap for most people, and subsidized for
    > low income families.

Healthcare cheap? I don't think so! Not many people would agree with you there.
Obviously you are not aware of the countless people who have been forced into
bankruptcy (after selling their homes and draining their life savings) to pay the
medical bills for a serious illness. You will be signing a different tune if and when
you ever get a serious illness. In Canada (and other countries) this is not an issue,
healthcare is provided to its citizens. I have healthcare in the US, but it does NOT
cover everything, some surgery's have outrageous co-pays, and some aren't covered at
all. For example, I will have to pay the full medical costs when my wife and I have a
baby under our current health insurance.

    > > Why do Canadians steal American satellite TV? Because some people will take
    > > something for free when they don't have to
pay
    > > for it.
    >
    > Alot of Canadians subscribe to American Satellite TV and pay more for it than
    > comparable Canadian cable or satellite. I have seen many Canadians complaining that
    > Canadian TV is boring and that it generally sucks.
    >
    > > And besides, I believe the legality in Canada for "stealing" satellite
TV is
    > > a grey area.
    >
    > Bullshit. The recent decision by the Canadian supreme court says otherwise. CanAm
    > satellites is going to be fighting it from a constitutional angle, and to me that
    > it a fool's desparate attempt to stay in business peddling an illegal product.
    >
    > > > One does not have to go to every other country to know that people are leaving
    > > > to come to the US in search of the almighty US dollar.
    > >
    > > You have to understand that there are more reasons than the US dollar to come to
    > > the US.
    >
    > You are right. People come here because we are a developed country with a far
    > better infrastructure and quality of life than their home country.
    >
    > > You have to understand that some people value things differently than
you
    > > do. For example, what is the price I am paying by leaving my family, friends and
    > > culture behind
in
    > > Canada. If it weren't for my wife being in the US, the value of being close to
my
    > > family, being able to see all my friends, etc, outweighs the value of coming to
the
    > > US.
    >
    > I think the value of the dollar outweighs everything.

Stephen Gallagh

[email protected] (peter) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > [email protected] (Stephen Gallagher) wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > > (snip)
    > > >
    > > > Note, BTW, that British law is not as permissive in this regard as US law. A
    > > > British-born child of foreign tourists does =not= get automatic British
    > > > citizenship; as I understand the law, at least one parent is required to be a
    > > > citizen or resident of the UK in order for the child to have British
    > > > citizenship.
    > >
    > > Keep in mind, however, that the requirement for one parent to either be British
    > > or to be a permanent resident of the UK, in order for a child born in the UK to
    > > receive British citizenship, has only applied to births that took place on or
    > > after January 1, 1983. Prior to that date, birth in the UK normally did confer
    > > British nationality on a person.
    > >
    > > The Thatcher government added this requirement because they feared an influx of
    > > Hong Kong residents who would come to Britain to get full British citizenship for
    > > their children. Remember that it was around this time that Britain and China
    > > finalized the details for the handover of Hong Kong back to China in 1999.
    >
    > thought it was 1997.
    >
Whenever.

Ingo Pakleppa

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 07:48:31 -0700, Nan Scott wrote:

    > "Ingo Pakleppa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 17:19:15 -0700, James Donovan wrote:
    >>
    >> > "DJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> > news:<[email protected]>...
    >> >
    >> >> I feel they are on the same level. The US has many advantages over Canada, but
    >> >> the reverse is also true, Canada has advantages over the US in other areas
    >> >> (free medical care for example).
    >> >
    >> > I make enough US dollars to make free health care a moot point. So do many other
    >> > Americans. Health insurance in the USA is cheap for most people, and subsidized
    >> > for low income families.
    >>
    >> Huh? US health care is the most expensive in the world, and there are about 40
    >> million uninsured people who make too much money to qualify for the subsidized
    >> health care that you mention. Did you ever check out how much a health insurance
    >> policy costs if the employer doesn't provide it? You can easily spend several
    >> hundred dollars on it, often more than people spend on rent (OK, not here in
    >> expensive California, but in other parts of the country).
    >>
    >> The only good point about US health care is that it also is the highest quality in
    >> the world.
    >
    > And how much cheaper would it be if we were not, through both our taxes and
    > increased hospital costs that our insurers pay, subsidizing health care for illegal
    > aliens who come here without the means to pay their health care and other costs?

Probably a drop in the bucket, if that much. Even the most generous estimates are
that there are a total of less than ten million undocumented aliens in the US - most
of them hard working farm hands and other workers who'd be reluctant to visit a
doctor except in the most extreme circumstances (because admitting being sick means
being without income).

What really drives health care cost up are two things: first, the quality of health
care really *is* first rate, and second, 40 million uninsured US citizens rely on
expensive emergency rooms to treat their ailments at a late stage, instead of getting
cheap prophylactic treatment.

Ingo

Ingo Pakleppa

As far as I know, they are granted temporary citizenship (strange concept, isn't it?)
nowadays that automatically ends when they turn 18 or 23 or something like that. I
seem to remember that at that point they can apply for naturalization, or something
like that. Most can't qualify for naturalization because Germany demands proof that
any other citizenship has been relinquished - and many countries (with large numbers
of their citizens living in Germany) do not under any circumstances allow their
citizens to give up citizenship. I think one example is Iran. Turkey does allow their
citizens to relinquish citizenship after paying a fee of some tens of thousands of $;
at least, that is my understanding.

And all that only applies if the parents were born in Germany.

At least, that's what I remember - I might be wrong about the details.

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 00:55:35 -0700, Des wrote:

    > Germany's immigration laws have changed. As far as I know, if a child of foriegn
    > citizens living in Germany is born there today, it can claim citizenship.
    >
    > - Des
    >
    >> Yes, of course. Almost every country in the world does it that way (notable
    >> exceptions are Germany, Kuwait, Russia, and probably a few others I don't know
    >> about).

James Donovan

Ingo Pakleppa <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>. ..

    > I have the feeling that working for DSS may have left you with a biased sample.
    > Nobody is arguing that such people exist. But there is a second category of illegal
    > alien - and a much larger: those who sweep the streets, vacuum our offices, harvest
    > our vegetables, etc.

There is a third category of illegal alien too. Those who kill, rob, rape, steal, fly
planes into buildings etc.

    > There is a reason the employer community is lobbying so strongly against
    > enforcement of immigration laws (although - don't misunderstand me here - I do
    > think this is wrong).

I would understand it too, but so many US citizens are now out of work, therefore
there should be plenty people to fill those jobs. This is provided of course that
employers want to pay minimum wage. You will find that the only reason they hire
illegals is because they can get them cheap, and they are virtually slaves. They
can't leave because their "employer" constantly threatens to report them to INS.

    > Basically, there are two main arguments used against illegal immigration: "we pay
    > their welfare" and "they take our jobs" - but few people realize that these two
    > arguments are actually contradictory. Personally, I'd be in favor of an essential
    > worker visa in order to allow such workers to come to the US legally and be
    > protected by the same labor laws as US citizens.

Ahhh... Companies would be opposed to such a visa because they would have to pay
minimum wage, which the currently do not do to illegal aliens. Incidentally, I
believe there is a seasonal farm labor visa (H-2A I think it is) but it is hardly
used because employers can still import illegal aliens for so much cheaper and pay
them next to nothing.

    >
    > > Now most people wonder why welfare is so screwed up and why municipal Governments
    > > are so tightly strapped for cash. There is your answer. A hell of alot is being
    > > wasted on welfare for people who simply refuse to get up and work (not only on
    > > illegal aliens, I must admit).
    >
    > Thanks for making that clear. I'd like to go one step further and say that, if
    > anything, illegal immigrants are *less* likely to seek such benefits than US
    > citizens and legal residents.

I can assure you that alot do when they have USC kids or gain amnesty and become
USC's later on.

    >
    > > Imagine when they can take this amount while being illegal, imagine when they are
    > > given amnesty and eventually become citizens.
    >
    > Don't worry, as a general rule, even if there was an amnesty, illegal aliens who
    > received welfare would be barred from using the amnesty (based on the "public
    > charge" ground of inadmissibility).

But nothing stops those who were not on welfare before from going on welfare later
on.

    >
    > In any case, such an amnesty is exceedingly rare. To my knowledge, there only ever
    > was one, and that is almost two decades ago (1986).

245(i) is a de-facto amnesty.

Des

    > And all that only applies if the parents were born in Germany.

Ingo, below an article summarizing the new citizenship laws of Germany.

Note that while there is a "requirement to opt" for one of two citizenships within
five years of turning 18, it is NOT usually ENFORCED - I can count at least five
friends holding dual citizenships simply because they were never asked to choose
(US-German, German-Turkish, German-Jordanian, German-Italian). Also, even if you are
in the process of getting naturalized in the US, you can be allowed to hold dual
citizenship with the US (and other countries) these days,_if_ you apply for
permission to do so in advance.

Here the summary article from http://britishexpats.com/germany/article33.html:

quote

Requirements to Obtain German Citizenship

Germany has had a new citizenship and nationality law since 1 January 2000. Before
the new legislation went into force, foreign nationals were granted entitlement to
naturalization only after 15 years of residence in Germany. Now, a foreign national
is entitled to naturalization after lawfully residing in Germany for eight years when
he meets the following requirements:

- He professes loyalty to the free democratic basic order laid down by Germany's
constitution and, in particular, has not been involved in any activities that are
hostile to the constitution.
- The respective individual is be in possession of a residence permit or the right of
unlimited residence.
- He is able to support himself without the help of welfare benefits or unemployment
assistance (as in the past, this requirement does not have to be checked in the
case of foreigners who are under 23 years of age; the receipt of unemployment
assistance or welfare benefits does not have a detrimental effect on the
individual's application when the respective individual is not responsible for the
situation)
- The applicant has renounced or lost his previous citizenship (exceptions are
allowed, particularly in those cases when it is not possible to renounce one's
previous citizenship or renouncement is possible only under difficult terms)
- The individual does not have a criminal record (exceptions are possible,
particularly in the case of minor offenses)
- He has an adequate command of the German language

Acquisition of German citizenship by the fact of being born in Germany

Children who are born in Germany to foreign nationals will receive German citizenship
when one of the respective child's parents has resided lawfully in Germany for at
least eight years and holds entitlement to residence or has had an unlimited
residence permit for at least three years.

Under the new law, such children acquire German citizenship at birth. In most cases,
they will also acquire their parents' citizenship under the principle of descent
(depending upon the other country's laws). For this reason, such children will have
to decide within five years of turning 18 - in other words, before their 23rd
birthday - whether they want to retain their German citizenship or their other
citizenship.

They must opt for one of their two nationalities (which is why this is called the
requirement to opt):

In the event that they declare that they want to retain their foreign citizenship,
they lose their German citizenship. This is also the case when such a child does not
make any statement to the authorities before his 23rd birthday.

Should the respective individual decide to keep his German citizenship, he has to
provide proof before his 23rd birthday that he has lost his other citizenship.
Exceptions are possible, particularly when renouncement of the other citizenship is
not possible or would be unreasonable.

unquote

Hope this helps to clarify the issue - more detailed information is available on any
German consular website.

- Des

Bodza Bodza

[email protected] (James Donovan) wrote in message
    > Many moons ago, I used to work with the NYC Dept. of Social Services (which has now
    > been renamed Human Resources Administration). It was simply shocking to see the
    > number of illegal alien parents applying for benefits. They were perfectly
    > eligible, because their children were born US citizens. It is simply amazing that
    > this sort of thing went on for years and no one even cared to do anything about it.

In your own words the parents were eligible because their children were born
US citizens.

You then go on to say "this sort of thing went on for years and no one even cared to
do anything about it".

Do anything about WHAT? The fact that the parents are claiming benefits they are
ENTITLED to IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

Stop with the xeno-phobic rhetoric already.

If "illegal aliens" are claiming benefits to which they are NOT ENTITLED that is one
thing but where the hell do you get off saying that it is bad that they claim
benefits SIMPLY because they are in the country in breach of immigration rules?

It is like saying a person who is in the country in breach of the rules is bad
through and through and someone born there is a
god-fearing-apple-pie-eating-all-american good person. Gimme a break. There are
plenty of hard working law abiding "illegal aliens" who other than the fact they are
here illegally they are BETTER citizens than most of the US born.

Gracias por tus consejos pendejo.

Nan Scott

"Bodza Bodza" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (James Donovan) wrote in message
    > > Many moons ago, I used to work with the NYC Dept. of Social Services (which has
    > > now been renamed Human Resources Administration). It was simply shocking to see
    > > the number of illegal alien parents applying for benefits. They were perfectly
    > > eligible, because their children were born US citizens. It is simply amazing
    > > that this sort of thing went on for years and no one even cared to do anything
    > > about it.
    >
    > In your own words the parents were eligible because their children were born US
    > citizens.
    >
The only reason those children are US citizens is that their parents violated US laws
to have anchor babies to keep them in the country that they entered illegally. They
then used the children to get welfare payments that morally is money stolen from the
taxpayers of this nation. When the parents are discovered to be illegals the parents
should have been deported. They would, of course, have the choice of surrendering
custody of the children before being deported or taking them with them to their
country of origin.

Jaj

    >n 11 Jul 2002 06:57:25 -0700, [email protected] (Des) wrote:

    >> And all that only applies if the parents were born in Germany.
    >
    >Ingo, below an article summarizing the new citizenship laws of Germany.
    >
    >Note that while there is a "requirement to opt" for one of two citizenships within
    >five years of turning 18,

Only if neither parent is German does this requirement exist.

    >t is NOT usually ENFORCED

No-one subject to this requirement under the new German law has yet reached 18.

Jeremy

James Donovan

[email protected] (Bodza Bodza) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > [email protected] (James Donovan) wrote in message
    > > Many moons ago, I used to work with the NYC Dept. of Social Services (which has
    > > now been renamed Human Resources Administration). It was simply shocking to see
    > > the number of illegal alien parents applying for benefits. They were perfectly
    > > eligible, because their children were born US citizens. It is simply amazing
    > > that this sort of thing went on for years and no one even cared to do anything
    > > about it.
    >
    > In your own words the parents were eligible because their children were born US
    > citizens.
    >
    > You then go on to say "this sort of thing went on for years and no one even cared
    > to do anything about it".
    >
    > Do anything about WHAT? The fact that the parents are claiming benefits they are
    > ENTITLED to IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
    >
    > Stop with the xeno-phobic rhetoric already.

It is not xenophobic rhetoric. I am very much in favour of immigration that is done
LEGALLY. Illegal immigration seriously cheats those who play by the rules.

    >
    > If "illegal aliens" are claiming benefits to which they are NOT ENTITLED that is
    > one thing but where the hell do you get off saying that it is bad that they claim
    > benefits SIMPLY because they are in the country in breach of immigration rules?

It is bad because they use their US born children to stay in the country illegally
and steal from the system.

    >
    > It is like saying a person who is in the country in breach of the rules is bad
    > through and through and someone born there is a
    > god-fearing-apple-pie-eating-all-american good person. Gimme a break. There are
    > plenty of hard working law abiding "illegal aliens" who other than the fact they
    > are here illegally they are BETTER citizens than most of the US born.

They broke the law, how can they be "better" citizens? Being a good citizen starts
with respecting the LAW, which illegal aliens have not done. It also means paying
your TAXES, which illegal aliens do not
do. It also means willingness to serve in the US military, which illegal aliens can
only do if drafted.