truthfulinsights

I think naturalization is a great thing. It is wonderful if you can go
to another country, live there, learn the language and then apply for
citizenship. It is refreshing to stand in front of a new flag and give
an oath of allegiance. Feel something new, patriotic, and say " Now I
am ( put the new nationality here)".

However, while the official "paper" naturalization is rather simple,
the social one is much harder if sometimes not downright near
impossible. Take your new compatriots, the "native" people, with
their natural human inquisitiveness. They will ask you the same
question no matter where you go- the "Where are you from?" question.
Unless you are some linguistic genius and have a good musical ear, you
will have an accent. Or, if you are of a different ethnic group, you
will look different from the majority of people. Your name may also
stand out. So, people, I mean people everywhere, will ask you the same
thing over and over again: "Where are you from?" Sure, now you can
tell them about your new residence in the country, the new town where
you live. They will then probably grimace un-satisfied-ly and ask you a
more direct , more insightful question that you simply cannot avoid
now- "Where are you from, originally?". Now, this is a tough one.
Unless you want to lie, you will have to tell them the truth. So, in
social situations, you often, if not always, remain a foreigner. In
spite of the oath you took.

The US- Mexican border people usually ask you "What is your
citizenship" before admitting you to the US. However, once a border
guard there asked me "Where were you born"? After I told him, a
mini-interrogation ensued. My family and I had to pull over, pull out
our US passports, he had to examine them, asking how my family and I
had acquired US citizenship, how long we had been in the US, all sorts
of things. I understand the security concern, but for some reason this
"born" thing is somehow so important to Americans. There was once a
celebration in the news of "American-born" athletes. There are a proud
song- "Born in the USA", and "Hello, America, how are you, don't you
know that I'm your native son?" . It all shows that the nativist
sentiment is quite strong in the US. Then, they wonder why some
immigrants are not as patriotic as they should be. How can you be a
full patriot if you are not really and truly seen as a 100% citizen
because of this "not born here" thing? Something you had no control
over but which is somehow often held against you.

The drive for diversity and political correctness in the US sometimes
does more harm than good as far as "becoming an American" is concerned
. There was once a company in the US that had a very international
staff from many different countries. The top manager was so proud of
the diversity of the workplace that he had a map on the wall with pins
stuck in it indicating where every employee was born. His intentions
were good, but if you are a naturalized US citizen, wouldn't you rather
just think of yourself as an American now and not have a pin stuck
somewhere that ,even with the best of intentions, still says-" He is
from another country"?

In France I have heard, the complaint of a lot of people is that even
after you become a citizen, they still treat you as a non-citizen. So,
I guess, in some places, one should not harbor too many illusions about
now belonging there.

In the US it is illegal to ask about birth place on job applications,
but in some other countries it is not. When applying for a job you end
up putting it. What next? You may be rejected for that job because of
that - local people come first. You are not from there, you know. Not
originally. And often, people will not ask you "What is your
citizenship?" except in passport offices of foreign embassies. They
will simply ask you the same "dooming" questions: "Where are you from?"
or "Where were you born?"

If people get angry at you for any reason, they may even tell you to
"Go back to ( put the name of the country here)!". Or, in hard
economic times, they will tell you that they have to hire ( put the
name of your new nationality here) and not "foreigners". If you protest
and say " I am not a foreigner, I am a citizen", an answer may come
your way- "I mean, a foreigner- not born here!" Such is sometimes the
reality of being a naturalized citizen. You may feel like a stepson,
not a real native son. Especially if you deal with uneducated "native"
people.

Now, it is nice to get a new passport and proclaim with pride: "I am
a citizen of ( put the country here)". However, somehow, not even one
country in the world issues a passport that does not have your
birthplace written in it. So, if you travel, people that check your
passport may start asking you questions, sometimes innocent, but,
sometimes, suspicious ones and treat you as a person of that old
country, not the new one you are a citizen of. And God forbid if that
country has a bad reputation in the one you are visiting. You can be
called all sorts of names. Or even refused entry.

In newspapers also, or in any media, in articles about you, they will
call you a "( put the name of a country + "ese" or "ian"
here) immigrant". They will call you like that before the
naturalization, and after the naturalization. Ten, twenty, thirty years
from now, you will remain an "immigrant". The US TV newscasters are
very fond of that, for one.

I think this is a new item in the area of political correctness that
liberals should work on eliminating. In the US, for one, there has
once been a positive term " New American" in the press. It should gain
more popularity as I have not been hearing it too often lately. The
term "first generation American" too, often means "first generation
'born' in the US". This should also change. It should include first
generation naturalized citizens, as well.

In the English-language press anywhere they love using the name of the
country and the word "born" after it, i.e. Polish-born,
German-born., etc. Regardless of your new US-, Canadian or whatever
other citizenship. Why do they do that? Is it really that important?
Why can't the say a "Canadian national", for one, and a "US national"?
Why is this birth thing ( a result of the parents' feelings for one
another on the territory of a country that you now owe no allegiance
to) so crucial that it needs to be rubbed in all the time- for decades?

Sometimes, they will use something like
"Australian-turned-American", etc. They will also talk about your
"homeland" -meaning your old country, not the new one, even though
you have taken an oath to reject your old country thoroughly and
completely.

Then, also, you hear things like "He is a second generation
Iranian". Meaning: "he is a child of Iranians who immigrated to
country X". Let's say your parents are Iranians and you were born in
the US. Your parents also became US citizens. Aren't you now a
second-generation 'American'? Shouldn't a "second generation
Iranian" be a child of people who became naturalized 'Iranian'
citizens in Iran? Another area that the PC people haven't gotten to
yet.

Lots of countries are like that in the way they talk about naturalized
citizens. To one degree or another. And few if any of such citizens
became presidents or prime ministers of their new country. That is
another thing that needs to be changed. Particularly in the US, there
is a law that prohibits foreign-born people from becoming President.
Say, if someone came from Canada at age 1 and does not know any other
country except the US, he cannot become President. However, if someone
was born in the US, but left at age 1, and knows very little about it(
such as a son of some tourists) he is eligible to become one. I think
it is unfair. You have not done anything bad but it is as if people do
not fully trust you. Can you ever become a full patriot? I do not think
so.

What if there is a Civics class and children are asked what they would
do if they were President or Prime-minister? Some kids will feel like
they are second-class. Not completely second class, but slightly below
the "true citizen", the "born-and-raised-here" one. This must change
one day.

Then, there is another thing. In some countries they have censuses that
talk about "foreign-born population", meaning "immigrants". So,
they will dump illegal ones, legal non-citizens, and naturalized
citizens into the same category. Makes you feel like you do not fully
belong. Whenever a naturalized citizen reads publications that mentions
such statistics, his feeling of patriotism for his country often
suffers a bit of a setback. How come one is put into the same class
with people who are not citizens yet? Didn't one go through all the
requirements for the citizenship tests and all? Didn't one swear on
the Bible his new allegiance rejecting every other country? Don't they
trust me?

And did you ever wonder why it is that they call it "citi-zenship"? It
is another misnomer, in my view. Shouldn't it be called
"countryzenship", or just "nationality"? After all, we do not became
members of a "city", but a nation. "Citizenship" is just anouther
carry-over from the time of city-states, a very distant period in world
history. We have nation-states now.

And is "naturalization" a good term? Like you were "unnatural" before
and then became "natural"? Like you were a robot before and now you are
a human being? One thing I like about Argentina and Uruguay is that
they do not have the term "naturalization"- they call it
"nacionalizacion". Immigrants are "nationalized", not "naturalized".
Maybe, that is the word that should be used in all the other countries
who are generous enough to admit new people as members of their
society.

However, one should not discount the positive things of naturalization.
In many countries non-citizens cannot own property. This is the reason
many people become citizens to begin with. If you want to own land
there, become one.

Also, you are legally what your new passport says no matter what people
may say. You can vote and qualify for many government jobs; you can now
travel abroad on the new passport and take employment in countries
whose employers prefer citizens of your new country. So, benefits
abound. It is important to concentrate on those, and try and minimize
the lingering "Where are you from?" reality.

Lastly, naturalized citizens in the US and everywhere else should unite
and work on changing societal attitudes towards them. Black people in
America rallied hard to change all sorts of nasty words applied to them
to a much more pleasant "African- American". Maybe naturalized
citizens should organize and do the same? But while things have not
changed, one should really try and equip oneself with skills and money
to counteract the possible discrimination against one. One will need to
work harder, study harder. Try and drop that accent. That's just the
way it is. Some things take a long time to change.

Above all, naturalization should be seen as a practical tool, not
something that can fulfill your romantic aspirations.

Kevin Keane

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

A wonderful article, thank you very much for posting it! A few comments
below.

[email protected] wrote:

    > I think naturalization is a great thing. It is wonderful if you can go
    > to another country, live there, learn the language and then apply for
    > citizenship. It is refreshing to stand in front of a new flag and give
    > an oath of allegiance. Feel something new, patriotic, and say " Now I
    > am ( put the new nationality here)".
    >
    > In the US it is illegal to ask about birth place on job applications,
    > but in some other countries it is not. When applying for a job you end
    > up putting it. What next? You may be rejected for that job because of
    > that - local people come first. You are not from there, you know. Not
    > originally. And often, people will not ask you "What is your
    > citizenship?" except in passport offices of foreign embassies. They
    > will simply ask you the same "dooming" questions: "Where are you from?"
    > or "Where were you born?"

In my experience, most people will ask "where are you from?" rather than
"where are you born?" I generally reply "San Diego" - the place where I
currently live. It quite clearly communicates what I think where I belong,
and to some extent also just how annoying such a question is. Many people
then unfortunately continue pressing the point, and then I say "I used to
live in New York, Seattle, Berlin, and other places".

This is also one of the reasons why I changed my name to a more
American-sounding one.

I have never experienced anger, and rarely discrimination, though (but then
I'm white European).

    > I think this is a new item in the area of political correctness that
    > liberals should work on eliminating. In the US, for one, there has
    > once been a positive term " New American" in the press. It should gain
    > more popularity as I have not been hearing it too often lately. The
    > term "first generation American" too, often means "first generation
    > 'born' in the US". This should also change. It should include first
    > generation naturalized citizens, as well.

I don't like any of that. I'm American. Period. It's nobody's business
whether I've been a US citizen for a month or for all my life.

    > Sometimes, they will use something like
    > "Australian-turned-American", etc. They will also talk about your
    > "homeland" -meaning your old country, not the new one, even though
    > you have taken an oath to reject your old country thoroughly and
    > completely.

That is not true. The oath does not require you to reject your country of
previous citizenship. In fact, the USA even allows you to maintain the old
citizenship.

    > Lots of countries are like that in the way they talk about naturalized
    > citizens. To one degree or another. And few if any of such citizens
    > became presidents or prime ministers of their new country.

Actually, it's quite common in Latin America. A number of leaders there in
the 1970s were German-born, and the recent Peruvian President Fujimori has
been described as second-generation Peruvian. Apparently, he still holds
Japanese citizenship, too.

Even in the USA, we currently have Governator Schwarzenegger - and for a
while, a Constitutional Amendment was proposed that would allow him to
become President.

One reason for not allowing naturalized citizens to become President is that
they often hold dual citizenship, just as Fujimori did in Peru. A better
rule would be that the US President must not have held any other
citizenship in the last 30 years.

    > That is
    > another thing that needs to be changed. Particularly in the US, there
    > is a law that prohibits foreign-born people from becoming President.
    > Say, if someone came from Canada at age 1 and does not know any other
    > country except the US, he cannot become President.

Examples are Madeline Albright (born in Czechoslovakia, immigrated with her
parents at age 4, I believe). Similarly, Henry Kissinger.

Both examples illustrate almost the opposite point, though: except for the
Constitutional requirement, immigrants can indeed go very far in the USA.

    > However, if someone
    > was born in the US, but left at age 1, and knows very little about it(
    > such as a son of some tourists) he is eligible to become one.

That's not true. The Constitution requires both that he is a native-born
citizen (that is, either born in the USA, or born abroad to US citizens),
and that he lived in the USA for a long time - I believe, 14 years.

    > Then, there is another thing. In some countries they have censuses that
    > talk about "foreign-born population", meaning "immigrants". So,
    > they will dump illegal ones, legal non-citizens, and naturalized
    > citizens into the same category. Makes you feel like you do not fully
    > belong.

The USA does that in our census every 10 years, too. There are some valid
reasons for doing that, though. The most important reason is to figure out
how immigrants from the past have succeeded in the USA. It is one factor
that goes into the immigration debate.

    > Whenever a naturalized citizen reads publications that mentions
    > such statistics, his feeling of patriotism for his country often
    > suffers a bit of a setback. How come one is put into the same class
    > with people who are not citizens yet? Didn't one go through all the
    > requirements for the citizenship tests and all? Didn't one swear on
    > the Bible his new allegiance rejecting every other country? Don't they
    > trust me?

I hope you didn't swear on the Bible ;-) That would be blatantly
unconstitutional. Even the clause "so help me god" is optional (although
USCIS does not tell you that).

    > And did you ever wonder why it is that they call it "citi-zenship"? It
    > is another misnomer, in my view. Shouldn't it be called
    > "countryzenship", or just "nationality"? After all, we do not became
    > members of a "city", but a nation. "Citizenship" is just anouther
    > carry-over from the time of city-states, a very distant period in world
    > history. We have nation-states now.

The word citizenship indeed derives from the city states, where one had to
distinguish between people entitled to live in the city, and people living
in the country. The concept of nation-state really evolved mostly with the
American and French revolutions (although the concept of citizenship
originated in ancient Rome, possibly Greece).

We use many words that on the face of it seem to now be meaningless. Subways
are often above ground. Sailors now work on ships with diesel engines.
Captains now fly aircraft. Cars have horsepowers. And so on and so on.

Nationality is actually a separate concept, at least under US law. There are
people who are US nationals but are not US citizens.

- --
Please visit my FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com before asking a question here.
It may answer your question. Remember, I am strictly a layperson without
any legal training. I encourage the reader to seek competent legal counsel
rather than relying on usenet newsgroups.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDyFZX2STeoAchQDkRArLGAJ4jyR6UdKPU8xFjeWce4J oJAilJfgCeJyU5
p26+0M67MK/q7TcFFIggKM4=
=SlB9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

crg

Not true.

The Canadian government will leave the birthplace off of the passport if requested by the applicant. It's optional.

Here is a partial list of recent or current foreign born US officials:

Elaine Chao Taiwan Secretary of Labor
Jennifer Granholm Canada Governor of Michigan
Carlos Gutierrez Cuba Secretary of Commerce
Tom Lantos Hungary Representative from California
Mel Martinez Cuba US Senator from Florida
John Negroponte United Kingdom Director of National Intelligence
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen Cuba Representative from Florida
Arnold Schwarzenegger Austria Governor of California
Marian P. Opala Poland Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice
Chris Van Hollen Pakistan Representative from Maryland
David Wu Taiwan Representative from Oregon

And other former officials:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...S._politicians

Try Iran, Japan, China, and the long list of other countries that don't naturalize anyone... ever. When will you ever open up a Japanese passport and see a Korean or African face looking back at you? There are families of Korean heritage that have lived in Japan for hundreds of years and they can't get a Japanese passport. They have a lesser travel document, and still need a US visa even though born in Japan.

It's not a perfect system, but it's better than most others in the world.

sgallagher

(snip)
    > ... in the US, there is a law that prohibits foreign-born people from
    > becoming President.

Not foreign born. The US Constitution requires that the president be a
"natural born" citizen. A person can be foreign born and still be
natural born if, for instance, he receives his US citizenship through a
US citizen parent or parents. It's not correct to state that foreign
born people cannot
be president.

P Pron

[email protected] wrote:
    || (snip)
    ||| ... in the US, there is a law that prohibits foreign-born people
    ||| from becoming President.
    ||
    || Not foreign born. The US Constitution requires that the president
    || be a "natural born" citizen. A person can be foreign born and still
    || be natural born if, for instance, he receives his US citizenship
    || through a US citizen parent or parents. It's not correct to state
    || that foreign born people cannot
    || be president.

Surely it depends on the precise meaning of "foreign-born"? In my view, it
is a shorthand phrase that can mean one of two things:
- that the person was born in a foreign country or
- that the person was a foreigner (ie, in this context, not a US citizen)
when he/she was born.

paul

Folinskyinla

Hi:

I seem to recall that this question was raised in 1968 when George Romney was running in the GOP primaries.

Probably an open question. In the just concluded Alito hearings, the nominee was unwilling to state whether or not "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" means that all persons born in the United States subject to its jurisidction are United States citizens.

Of course, I would like to take to defend a removal hearing with a criminial conviction charge in it against an EWI on the gound he is "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Folinskyinla

In thinking about the presidential qualification clause, it occurred to me that historians commonly acknowledge that the drafters had WHO the first president would be and that was the first of the three presidents named George.

Take a look at the LAST name on that Wikkipedia list -- Alex [he of the ten dollar bill] was one of the primary authors of the Federalist Papers. I recall that many of the founding fathers didn't like him.

Kevin Keane

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

P Pron wrote:

    > [email protected] wrote:
    > || (snip)
    > ||| ... in the US, there is a law that prohibits foreign-born people
    > ||| from becoming President.
    > ||
    > || Not foreign born. The US Constitution requires that the president
    > || be a "natural born" citizen. A person can be foreign born and still
    > || be natural born if, for instance, he receives his US citizenship
    > || through a US citizen parent or parents. It's not correct to state
    > || that foreign born people cannot
    > || be president.
    >
    > Surely it depends on the precise meaning of "foreign-born"? In my view, it
    > is a shorthand phrase that can mean one of two things:
    > - that the person was born in a foreign country or
    > - that the person was a foreigner (ie, in this context, not a US citizen)
    > when he/she was born.

With this definition, you would of course be right. But it is an unusual
definition; usually, "foreign-born" means "born on foreign soil".

Interestingly, the term "natural born citizen" used in the Constitution is
actually not completely defined, and a few people have occasionally
proposed that it means "born on US soil" in addition to the common "a
citizen from birth" (by the way, not everybody born on US soil is a citizen
from birth, although most people are).

There actually were a number of foreign-born Presidential candidates,
although nobody ever made it to the throne. The most recent one was John
McCain (born in Canada). Before that, George Romney (born to American
citizens who fled persecution and were in Mexico as refugees), and Barry
Goldwater (born in Arizona before it was a state) were also foreign-born US
citizens probably eligible for the Presidency.


- --
Please visit my FAQ at http://www.kkeane.com before asking a question here.
It may answer your question. Remember, I am strictly a layperson without
any legal training. I encourage the reader to seek competent legal counsel
rather than relying on usenet newsgroups.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDyQz22STeoAchQDkRAkt8AJ43lgl16s58bAmkWvJ+1B rfgVIZFACfTz6n
q9dDl+WvnQQ+6Lago9c//40=
=+Wbh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

JAJ

As far as I know, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone (rather than Canada).

crg

I've also seen a Japanese passport holder who was born in the United States. Their passport discretely listed their place of residence, which was a city in Japan, instead of their place of birth.

truthfulinsights

    >>Nationality is actually a separate concept, at least under US law. There are
    >>people who are US nationals but are not US citizens.

Like who for example?

    >>"All persons born or
    >>naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
    >>thereof, are citizens of the United States"

What is they are naturalized in Puerto Rico? Or Guam? It is a
territory. Not a state. Or the people born there. It is not really the
United States.

JAJ

1. US nationals (who are not US citizens) comprise people from American Samoa and Swains Island. US nationals may still move to the US and become naturalised US citizens.

2. The US citizenship of persons from Puerto Rico, Guam, the North Marianas, and US Virgin Islands is conferred by Act of Congress. Same goes for the District of Columbia (not a state) and places like Alaska and Hawaii during the period when they were under US control but not yet admitted to statehood.

Rich Wales

Kevin Keane wrote:

> One reason for not allowing naturalized citizens to become
> President is that they often hold dual citizenship, just
> as Fujimori did in Peru.

Of course, it's also possible for a US-born citizen to have a second
citizenship -- most commonly if either or both of his/her parents are
foreign citizens.

> A better rule would be that the US President must not have
> held any other citizenship in the last 30 years.

Such a rule would have to somehow deal with the case where someone
was passively, automatically considered a citizen of some other
country from birth -- e.g., someone born in the US of foreign
parentage, where the ancestral country claims them as a citizen
regardless of whether such citizenship was requested (or even
desired).

A friend of mine some years ago -- born in the US of Korean parents
-- got into trouble while on an extended trip to South Korea, because
the Korean government insisted he was a Korean citizen and would have
drafted him into the Korean army if he hadn't left the country ASAP.
The facts that my friend was born in the US, had never thought of
himself as a citizen of any other country, and had entered Korea
using a US passport, made no difference at all under a Korean law
that cared only about the fact that his father was from Korea.

Additionally, a naturalized US citizen might continue to be claimed
by his/her old country as one of its citizens. The US naturalization
oath contains a blanket renunciation of all prior allegiances, but
many other countries refuse to recognize this statement as having any
legal significance under their own laws. And some countries make it
essentially impossible to renounce citizenship, even if one wants to.

So, some people might "hold" another citizenship, even if they have
made no effort to exercise it, and even if they actively want to get
rid of it (but can't because the other country refuses to let go).

> We use many words that on the face of it seem to now be
> meaningless. Subways are often above ground.

Indeed. For the longest time, I thought Petula Clark's song from the
1960's was talking about not sleeping in underground train stations.

Rich Wales [email protected] http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

Rich Wales

"crg14624" wrote:

> The Canadian government will leave the birthplace off of
> the passport if requested by the applicant. It's optional.

True -- though they also caution that some countries might refuse to
accept a Canadian (or other foreign) passport without the bearer's
birthplace, and applicants are urged to check for themselves, in
advance, to see if this will be a problem.

Rich Wales [email protected] http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.

Rich Wales

"P Pron" wrote:

> Surely it depends on the precise meaning of "foreign-born"?

The actual phrase in the Constitution is "natural born citizen".

This phrase appears to have been a commonly understood bit of legal
jargon in the 18th century -- referring to someone who was considered
a citizen from the moment of his/her birth.

An older meaning of the word "natural" was "having citizenship";
thus, being "naturalized" (i.e., "made natural") meant being given
citizenship -- whereas a person with citizenship from birth didn't
need to be "naturalized" because he/she was "natural born".

Nevertheless, it must be conceded that the phrase "natural born" is
not explicitly defined in the Constitution. And, to the best of my
knowledge, this phrase has never been conclusively defined in any
court ruling. Thus, at least in theory, it's possible that we will
never =really= know what "natural born citizen" means until/unless
a case involving a questionable candidate for President or VP makes
its way to the Supreme Court.

At least three presidential hopefuls were born outside the US --
Barry Goldwater (1964; born in pre-statehood Arizona); George Romney
(1968; born in Mexico to American parents); and John McCain (2000;
born in the Panama Canal Zone to American parents).

Rich Wales [email protected] http://www.richw.org/dualcit/
*DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant,
or consular officer. My comments are for discussion purposes only and
are not intended to be relied upon as legal or professional advice.