Is there such as thing as triple nationality
Oct 15th 2003, 1:33 pm
#1
BE Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 974
Is there such as thing as triple nationality
OK, sorry if this is the wrong forum, but none of them seem to fit exactly, so here goes.
I am working in the US, currently under AOS on an L1 visa. My wife is on an L2 and not working. I am British and my wife is French (although has not lived in France for over 15 years).
When we moved here we did not know that my wife was pregnant.
In early Sept we had our child. He is naturally a US citizen, and I wanted to clarify if there is such as thing as triple nationality. Although not strictly necessary, we would like him to have the choice of living in either UK, France or the US when he is older. I understand that under EU rules, he has the right of abode in either France or the UK with either a UK or French passport. Is there any advantage in have both a UK and French passport in addition to a US, and is this even possible? Hope this makes sense, and that someone knows the answer.
Many Thanks
Tim
I am working in the US, currently under AOS on an L1 visa. My wife is on an L2 and not working. I am British and my wife is French (although has not lived in France for over 15 years).
When we moved here we did not know that my wife was pregnant.
In early Sept we had our child. He is naturally a US citizen, and I wanted to clarify if there is such as thing as triple nationality. Although not strictly necessary, we would like him to have the choice of living in either UK, France or the US when he is older. I understand that under EU rules, he has the right of abode in either France or the UK with either a UK or French passport. Is there any advantage in have both a UK and French passport in addition to a US, and is this even possible? Hope this makes sense, and that someone knows the answer.
Many Thanks
Tim
Oct 15th 2003, 4:17 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Is there such as thing as triple nationality
TimFountain wrote:
>
> In early Sept we had our child. He is naturally a US citizen, and I
> wanted to clarify if there is such as thing as triple nationality.
Sure. I know somebody who is a US citizen, a Spanish citizen and a
French citizen (parents US and Spanish, born in France.)
-Joe
>
> In early Sept we had our child. He is naturally a US citizen, and I
> wanted to clarify if there is such as thing as triple nationality.
Sure. I know somebody who is a US citizen, a Spanish citizen and a
French citizen (parents US and Spanish, born in France.)
-Joe
Oct 15th 2003, 5:37 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Is there such as thing as triple nationality
"TimFountain" wrote:
> I wanted to clarify if there is such as thing as
> triple nationality.
Sure. It's really no different than dual nationality.
The key concept is that you need to think of citizenship (or
nationality, which is more or less the same thing) as something
that is determined by each country in the world, all by itself,
according to its own laws, and generally without paying any
attention to the laws of any other country.
That is, when someone has "dual" citizenship, this means that
two different countries each have some reason to consider a given
individual to be one of their citizens. If someone (call him
"John Doe" for purposes of discussion) is a "dual" citizen of
countries X and Y, this means that country X thinks John Doe is
a citizen of country X, and country Y thinks John Doe is a citizen
of country Y, and neither country minds, cares, or even wants to
be bothered with what the other country thinks about John Doe.
Given the right set of circumstances, it's certainly possible
that a third country (Z) might additionally consider John Doe to
be one of its citizens. Again, each country (X, Y, and Z) would
claim John Doe solely on the basis of its own laws, and none of
the three countries would be influenced by the claims of the other
two on John Doe.
There's not even any particular reason to stop at three. In some
cases, a person could be simultaneously claimed as a citizen by
four, five, or more countries. Obviously, such situations are
quite rare, because it's not very common for just the right
combination of national laws regarding citizenship by descent
and/or citizenship by birthplace to come together, but it's not
absolutely impossible.
Now, to be sure, some countries do impose limits on multiple
citizenship. For example, there are some countries that will
revoke a child's citizenship when he/she grows up unless he/she
renounces other citizenships he/she acquired at birth. Japan,
Singapore, and Germany have laws of this sort, AFAIK, but the
US and the UK do not. But when such laws exist, the idea is to
force the retention of only a single citizenship (i.e., "you
can't remain a citizen of our country unless you renounce all
other citizenships and keep =only= our citizenship"). I've
never heard of any country which requires a child born with
triple citizenship to keep at most two citizenships (as opposed
to only one) when he/she grows up.
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.
> I wanted to clarify if there is such as thing as
> triple nationality.
Sure. It's really no different than dual nationality.
The key concept is that you need to think of citizenship (or
nationality, which is more or less the same thing) as something
that is determined by each country in the world, all by itself,
according to its own laws, and generally without paying any
attention to the laws of any other country.
That is, when someone has "dual" citizenship, this means that
two different countries each have some reason to consider a given
individual to be one of their citizens. If someone (call him
"John Doe" for purposes of discussion) is a "dual" citizen of
countries X and Y, this means that country X thinks John Doe is
a citizen of country X, and country Y thinks John Doe is a citizen
of country Y, and neither country minds, cares, or even wants to
be bothered with what the other country thinks about John Doe.
Given the right set of circumstances, it's certainly possible
that a third country (Z) might additionally consider John Doe to
be one of its citizens. Again, each country (X, Y, and Z) would
claim John Doe solely on the basis of its own laws, and none of
the three countries would be influenced by the claims of the other
two on John Doe.
There's not even any particular reason to stop at three. In some
cases, a person could be simultaneously claimed as a citizen by
four, five, or more countries. Obviously, such situations are
quite rare, because it's not very common for just the right
combination of national laws regarding citizenship by descent
and/or citizenship by birthplace to come together, but it's not
absolutely impossible.
Now, to be sure, some countries do impose limits on multiple
citizenship. For example, there are some countries that will
revoke a child's citizenship when he/she grows up unless he/she
renounces other citizenships he/she acquired at birth. Japan,
Singapore, and Germany have laws of this sort, AFAIK, but the
US and the UK do not. But when such laws exist, the idea is to
force the retention of only a single citizenship (i.e., "you
can't remain a citizen of our country unless you renounce all
other citizenships and keep =only= our citizenship"). I've
never heard of any country which requires a child born with
triple citizenship to keep at most two citizenships (as opposed
to only one) when he/she grows up.
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.
Oct 15th 2003, 8:55 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Is there such as thing as triple nationality
[email protected] (Rich Wales) wrote in message news:<[email protected] rg>...
> I've never heard of any country which requires a child born with
> triple citizenship to keep at most two citizenships (as opposed
> to only one) when he/she grows up.
Not at all uncommon. A number of countries have laws allowing the
retention of a second nationality only if the two countries have a
treaty on the subject. Honduras has (or had, for all I know it could
have been changed) such a law. I recall George Ginsburgs writing of
some former USSR republics with such laws. Kazakhstan comes to mind.
China has a number of nationality treaties ostensibly limiting the
number of nationalities to one, but apparently the treaties have not
worked quite that way. Malta and Germany allow multiple nationality
under conditions that make triple nationality difficult, but not
impossible.
The Defense Security Service has done a survey (well, it seems that
they had someone telephone consular officers around Washington) and
you can find the results at
http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/forpref/country4.htm
or by clicking the various country sets at
http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/forpref/
> I've never heard of any country which requires a child born with
> triple citizenship to keep at most two citizenships (as opposed
> to only one) when he/she grows up.
Not at all uncommon. A number of countries have laws allowing the
retention of a second nationality only if the two countries have a
treaty on the subject. Honduras has (or had, for all I know it could
have been changed) such a law. I recall George Ginsburgs writing of
some former USSR republics with such laws. Kazakhstan comes to mind.
China has a number of nationality treaties ostensibly limiting the
number of nationalities to one, but apparently the treaties have not
worked quite that way. Malta and Germany allow multiple nationality
under conditions that make triple nationality difficult, but not
impossible.
The Defense Security Service has done a survey (well, it seems that
they had someone telephone consular officers around Washington) and
you can find the results at
http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/forpref/country4.htm
or by clicking the various country sets at
http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/forpref/
Oct 15th 2003, 11:42 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Is there such as thing as triple nationality
"Blatt" wrote:
> The Defense Security Service has done a survey (well, it
> seems that they had someone telephone consular officers
> around Washington) and you can find the results at . . .
> http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/forpref/
Thanks for this link.
The info in these pages might not be reliable, however. I started
taking a quick look just now, and I've noticed two errors already:
Under "Canada", it says that a naturalized citizen who has spent
more than 10 years living abroad can lose citizenship. This is not
true -- at least, not since 1977, when Canada's current citizenship
law took effect.
Also, under "Australia", it says that foreign naturalization is
grounds for involuntary loss of citizenship. This used to be true,
but Australia's citizenship law was amended in early 2002 to remove
this provision.
So this set of pages may be a guide or starting point, but they're
at best a secondary source of info, and if it really matters to
someone's individual situation, they should always go to a primary
source of current information before taking action.
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.
> The Defense Security Service has done a survey (well, it
> seems that they had someone telephone consular officers
> around Washington) and you can find the results at . . .
> http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/forpref/
Thanks for this link.
The info in these pages might not be reliable, however. I started
taking a quick look just now, and I've noticed two errors already:
Under "Canada", it says that a naturalized citizen who has spent
more than 10 years living abroad can lose citizenship. This is not
true -- at least, not since 1977, when Canada's current citizenship
law took effect.
Also, under "Australia", it says that foreign naturalization is
grounds for involuntary loss of citizenship. This used to be true,
but Australia's citizenship law was amended in early 2002 to remove
this provision.
So this set of pages may be a guide or starting point, but they're
at best a secondary source of info, and if it really matters to
someone's individual situation, they should always go to a primary
source of current information before taking action.
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.
Oct 16th 2003, 8:00 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Is there such as thing as triple nationality
[email protected] (Rich Wales) wrote in message news:<[email protected] rg>...
> "Blatt" wrote:
>
> > The Defense Security Service has done a survey (well, it
> > seems that they had someone telephone consular officers
> > around Washington) and you can find the results at . . .
> > http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/forpref/
>
> Thanks for this link.
...
> So this set of pages may be a guide or starting point, but they're
> at best a secondary source of info, and if it really matters to
> someone's individual situation, they should always go to a primary
> source of current information before taking action.
I made that clear, suggesting how the survey was probably done. And I
noted that I had no idea whether Honduras still had the treaty rule in
place (Kazakhstan surely has not changed its law recently; anyway it
has other problems).
The survey's purpose is stated, and it has a false premise, but one
that has motivated America Firsters and their ilk for more than a
century: to have another nationality, or a relative of a different
nationality, makes one potentially a fifth column. Hence the laws of
the 1920s (struck down by the Supreme Court) against the teaching of
foreign languages in primary schools. The prejudice against dual
nationality has been and is used to question the loyalty of Jews and
(more so in the past than now) Catholics. Its use against Muslims is
more nuanced in fact since Islam (like Jehovah's Witnesses) have at
least a theological argument against allegiance to the State, and the
most fundamentalist of Islamists attack not only the corruption of
governments of predominantly Muslim countries, but their very
existence. (The non-Muslim state is supposed to be transitional, and
except by the bin Laden-types can be tolerated; but here the law of
jihad, like so much when history and myth become theology, gets
muddled up.)
I mentioned Honduras for another reason: Spain has a web of
nationality treaties, and allows nationals from most Spanish-speaking
countries, plus the Philippines (but not Guam or Puerto Rico)
facilitated naturalization under its nationality law. With the treaty
in place (and I cannot confirm that Spain actually has one with
Honduras because I don't have access to the UN Treaty Database from
home) there would, in fact, be an allowance of two specific
nationalities, but none other.
(On Puerto Rico, whatever you think about US nationality and its laws
-- and I know you write on line about it -- understand that there is
an essential difference between US nationailty gained by birth in one
of the 50 states or DC and any other kind -- it is the difference
between Common Law allegiance to the Sovereign (in the US to the
State, in Britain to the King) codified in the 14th Amendment and the
other statutory kind. What Congress gives, it can surely take away
(and never mind Rios v. Civiletti, 571 F. Supp. 218 (D.P.R. 1983)
(father, U.S. Army deserter, recorded birth in Mexico using fictitious
name), I don't mean that way. Look rather at 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). And look at federal tax law: there
is clear distinction between the citizen born or naturalized in the 50
States & DC and those who are US citizens solely because of a
connection with, and are residents of, an outlying territory.) Then,
there are noncitizen nationals of American Samoa and Swain's Island.
But who were the millions of noncitizen nationals before 1946 (or was
it 1934: there's some ambiguity in the case law that I've never
bothered to resolve) ... but Filipinos.
I don't recall how many treaties Russia ratified, or even if any are
in force. Dual nationality does exist among some country pairs, and
Russians can in practice have as many as they want despite the US-USSR
consular agreement (probably a dead letter). But then even Japanese
(Kawakita, Fujimori), Germans (all the denaturalized and deported
Nazis) and Australians and Japanese I have known have slipped through
the cracks. Malta was forced to change its law (regarding Maltese who
emigrated); and the Baltic countries' anti-dual
citizenship/nationality laws are partly unenforceable and will become
more so when those countries join the EU.
And as for Zimbabwe (and, in the past more than now, China), what does
the black-letter law mean other than what the dictator says it does?
Did they even pass a law, or did they just declare from the palace
that dual nationality was forbidden? And what of that former paragon
of stability in West Africa, where the "president" (was it Gbago? or
maybe it was his predecessor, how soon we forget their names) suddenly
declared some northerners no longer to be Ivorian, and then the
southerners decided that maybe no northerner was Ivorian... Actually
Ivory Coast had a good legal system, and many Lebanese and a few
Americans (well, Suzan C. anyway) were naturalized (well, they had
Ivorian passports, anyway).
And Liberia. Master Sergeant Doe succeeded in his drunken putsch
against Pres. Tolbert by accident: the palace guards were asleep, and
then the warning bell didn't work (how Liberian!) But Doe wasn't 35
and their USA-mirror Constitution demanded that the president be 35.
So did he change the Constittuion? No, he went to the judge and had
hiimself declared 35 years old!
Many nationality laws work that way too. One wonders why such
countries feel the need for courts and public trials, and convictions,
and laws. And, above all, confessions prior to execution.
Why is Switzerland such a neat place, so uncorrupt (according to
Transparency International -- far less corrupt than he USA, which with
the Enrons and Iraq is rather third-worldy these days)? I argue it's
because (like San Marino, in nationaly myth anyway the world's oldest
democracy) its presidents rotate from among the governing council, and
they serve for one year only. I can't go into detail here and now why
Switzerland changed its nationality law to permit dual nationality;
but I think it had something to do with giving the vote to women in
the 1960s and a recognition that (perhaps because its status as tax
haven and financial center, and its having to repay its ill-gotten WW
II wealth) it was losing population. How better, one might ask, to
increase the population with like-minded, racially-Swiss people than
to reclaim the offspring of emigrants.
Ah! Ghost of Mancini. Did I hear "Ein Volk!" translated into Italian?
But think: Case C-274/96 Bickel and Franz [1998] ECR I-7637. Vee are
all Uropeeans now!
http://www.geocities.com/slv212/bickel.htm
(re: the right of Germans to use their native language in defending a
traffic ticket in a Northern Italian court, given that German-speaking
Italians could have done so.)
> "Blatt" wrote:
>
> > The Defense Security Service has done a survey (well, it
> > seems that they had someone telephone consular officers
> > around Washington) and you can find the results at . . .
> > http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/forpref/
>
> Thanks for this link.
...
> So this set of pages may be a guide or starting point, but they're
> at best a secondary source of info, and if it really matters to
> someone's individual situation, they should always go to a primary
> source of current information before taking action.
I made that clear, suggesting how the survey was probably done. And I
noted that I had no idea whether Honduras still had the treaty rule in
place (Kazakhstan surely has not changed its law recently; anyway it
has other problems).
The survey's purpose is stated, and it has a false premise, but one
that has motivated America Firsters and their ilk for more than a
century: to have another nationality, or a relative of a different
nationality, makes one potentially a fifth column. Hence the laws of
the 1920s (struck down by the Supreme Court) against the teaching of
foreign languages in primary schools. The prejudice against dual
nationality has been and is used to question the loyalty of Jews and
(more so in the past than now) Catholics. Its use against Muslims is
more nuanced in fact since Islam (like Jehovah's Witnesses) have at
least a theological argument against allegiance to the State, and the
most fundamentalist of Islamists attack not only the corruption of
governments of predominantly Muslim countries, but their very
existence. (The non-Muslim state is supposed to be transitional, and
except by the bin Laden-types can be tolerated; but here the law of
jihad, like so much when history and myth become theology, gets
muddled up.)
I mentioned Honduras for another reason: Spain has a web of
nationality treaties, and allows nationals from most Spanish-speaking
countries, plus the Philippines (but not Guam or Puerto Rico)
facilitated naturalization under its nationality law. With the treaty
in place (and I cannot confirm that Spain actually has one with
Honduras because I don't have access to the UN Treaty Database from
home) there would, in fact, be an allowance of two specific
nationalities, but none other.
(On Puerto Rico, whatever you think about US nationality and its laws
-- and I know you write on line about it -- understand that there is
an essential difference between US nationailty gained by birth in one
of the 50 states or DC and any other kind -- it is the difference
between Common Law allegiance to the Sovereign (in the US to the
State, in Britain to the King) codified in the 14th Amendment and the
other statutory kind. What Congress gives, it can surely take away
(and never mind Rios v. Civiletti, 571 F. Supp. 218 (D.P.R. 1983)
(father, U.S. Army deserter, recorded birth in Mexico using fictitious
name), I don't mean that way. Look rather at 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). And look at federal tax law: there
is clear distinction between the citizen born or naturalized in the 50
States & DC and those who are US citizens solely because of a
connection with, and are residents of, an outlying territory.) Then,
there are noncitizen nationals of American Samoa and Swain's Island.
But who were the millions of noncitizen nationals before 1946 (or was
it 1934: there's some ambiguity in the case law that I've never
bothered to resolve) ... but Filipinos.
I don't recall how many treaties Russia ratified, or even if any are
in force. Dual nationality does exist among some country pairs, and
Russians can in practice have as many as they want despite the US-USSR
consular agreement (probably a dead letter). But then even Japanese
(Kawakita, Fujimori), Germans (all the denaturalized and deported
Nazis) and Australians and Japanese I have known have slipped through
the cracks. Malta was forced to change its law (regarding Maltese who
emigrated); and the Baltic countries' anti-dual
citizenship/nationality laws are partly unenforceable and will become
more so when those countries join the EU.
And as for Zimbabwe (and, in the past more than now, China), what does
the black-letter law mean other than what the dictator says it does?
Did they even pass a law, or did they just declare from the palace
that dual nationality was forbidden? And what of that former paragon
of stability in West Africa, where the "president" (was it Gbago? or
maybe it was his predecessor, how soon we forget their names) suddenly
declared some northerners no longer to be Ivorian, and then the
southerners decided that maybe no northerner was Ivorian... Actually
Ivory Coast had a good legal system, and many Lebanese and a few
Americans (well, Suzan C. anyway) were naturalized (well, they had
Ivorian passports, anyway).
And Liberia. Master Sergeant Doe succeeded in his drunken putsch
against Pres. Tolbert by accident: the palace guards were asleep, and
then the warning bell didn't work (how Liberian!) But Doe wasn't 35
and their USA-mirror Constitution demanded that the president be 35.
So did he change the Constittuion? No, he went to the judge and had
hiimself declared 35 years old!
Many nationality laws work that way too. One wonders why such
countries feel the need for courts and public trials, and convictions,
and laws. And, above all, confessions prior to execution.
Why is Switzerland such a neat place, so uncorrupt (according to
Transparency International -- far less corrupt than he USA, which with
the Enrons and Iraq is rather third-worldy these days)? I argue it's
because (like San Marino, in nationaly myth anyway the world's oldest
democracy) its presidents rotate from among the governing council, and
they serve for one year only. I can't go into detail here and now why
Switzerland changed its nationality law to permit dual nationality;
but I think it had something to do with giving the vote to women in
the 1960s and a recognition that (perhaps because its status as tax
haven and financial center, and its having to repay its ill-gotten WW
II wealth) it was losing population. How better, one might ask, to
increase the population with like-minded, racially-Swiss people than
to reclaim the offspring of emigrants.
Ah! Ghost of Mancini. Did I hear "Ein Volk!" translated into Italian?
But think: Case C-274/96 Bickel and Franz [1998] ECR I-7637. Vee are
all Uropeeans now!
http://www.geocities.com/slv212/bickel.htm
(re: the right of Germans to use their native language in defending a
traffic ticket in a Northern Italian court, given that German-speaking
Italians could have done so.)
Oct 16th 2003, 12:57 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Is there such as thing as triple nationality
>On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 17:37:06 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Rich Wales) wrote:
>"TimFountain" wrote:
> > I wanted to clarify if there is such as thing as
> > triple nationality.
>There's not even any particular reason to stop at three. In some
>cases, a person could be simultaneously claimed as a citizen by
>four, five, or more countries. Obviously, such situations are
>quite rare, because it's not very common for just the right
>combination of national laws regarding citizenship by descent
>and/or citizenship by birthplace to come together, but it's not
>absolutely impossible.
Triple citizenship is not common, but nor is it especially rare
either. Especially considering that between certain countries, dual
nationality is quite common (eg Ireland and the UK, or Australia and
New Zealand) and such a dual citizen who naturalises in a third
country would become a triple citizen.
I've come across a case where someone was Australian by birth, but
also had New Zealand, British and Irish citizenship by descent.
>Now, to be sure, some countries do impose limits on multiple
>citizenship. For example, there are some countries that will
>revoke a child's citizenship when he/she grows up unless he/she
>renounces other citizenships he/she acquired at birth. Japan,
>Singapore, and Germany have laws of this sort, AFAIK,
Germany's law only applies to those who have non-German parents and
who acquire citizenship solely by birth in Germany (which is subject
to stringent conditions in itself).
While the German law requires the citizen to provide formal evidence
that he has lost or given up any other citizenships, it's not clear
whether the Japanese law requires anything more than a statement to
the Japanese government renouncing other citizenships. Such an action
would not cause loss of UK or US citizenship.
Some Scandinavian countries require children born to citizens overseas
to register to retain citizenship by a specific age (usually 21 or 22)
but not to give up any foreign citizenship as part of the process.
>but the
>US and the UK do not. But when such laws exist, the idea is to
>force the retention of only a single citizenship (i.e., "you
>can't remain a citizen of our country unless you renounce all
>other citizenships and keep =only= our citizenship"). I've
>never heard of any country which requires a child born with
>triple citizenship to keep at most two citizenships (as opposed
>to only one) when he/she grows up.
There is one scenario where dual citizenship might be ok, but triple
citizenship not possible. For example, a person born in the UK to
British and Danish parents will may well have dual British/Danish
citizenship. The person can retain Danish citizenship by going
through the necessary processes before the age limit, and still keep
British citizenship.
However, Denmark only allows for dual citizenship if the other
citizenship was acquired at birth. So a dual Danish/UK citizen who
migrates to Canada and eventually becomes a Canadian citizen will keep
his British citizenship, but lose his Danish citizenship upon becoming
Canadian.
It should be clear from all this that each country's law is different
(and generally complex, with provisos and exceptions to general rules)
and that gives rise to a very large number of permutations ...
>I am working in the US, currently under AOS on an L1 visa. My wife is on
>an L2 and not working. I am British and my wife is French (although has
>not lived in France for over 15 years).
>In early Sept we had our child. He is naturally a US citizen, and I
>wanted to clarify if there is such as thing as triple nationality.
>Although not strictly necessary, we would like him to have the choice of
>living in either UK, France or the US when he is older. I understand
>that under EU rules, he has the right of abode in either France or the
>UK with either a UK or French passport. Is there any advantage in have
>both a UK and French passport in addition to a US, and is this even
>possible? Hope this makes sense, and that someone knows the answer.
Assuming you were born or naturalised in the UK, your child is a
British citizen by descent automatically. Just apply to the British
Embassy for a British passport for him. You should be able to find
contact details via http://www.fco.gov.uk
Your future grandchildren may not be British if born outside the UK -
I suggest you visit http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk where there's
information on how this works. Not that it's going to be an issue for
some time
but when your son is older he needs to be aware of his
status. Even if he lives for some years in the UK, he's a British
citizen by descent 'for life' as far as the UK authorites are
concerned under the current law.
Child is probably also a French citizen - get in touch with the French
authorities to document this and get a passport. There's information
at:
http://www.southern-cross-group.org/...ip/france.html
French citizenship can also be acquired by marriage.
As far as the US authorities are concerned, your child is a US citizen
first and foremost. It's ok to use British or French passports
outside the US, but he should always identify himself to the US
authorities as an American and use a US passport to show to US
immigration officials. When older, he will be expected to comply with
Selective Service - http://www.sss.gov - and IRS tax filing
regulations, even if by that time he is living outside the US.
Jeremy
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
>"TimFountain" wrote:
> > I wanted to clarify if there is such as thing as
> > triple nationality.
>There's not even any particular reason to stop at three. In some
>cases, a person could be simultaneously claimed as a citizen by
>four, five, or more countries. Obviously, such situations are
>quite rare, because it's not very common for just the right
>combination of national laws regarding citizenship by descent
>and/or citizenship by birthplace to come together, but it's not
>absolutely impossible.
Triple citizenship is not common, but nor is it especially rare
either. Especially considering that between certain countries, dual
nationality is quite common (eg Ireland and the UK, or Australia and
New Zealand) and such a dual citizen who naturalises in a third
country would become a triple citizen.
I've come across a case where someone was Australian by birth, but
also had New Zealand, British and Irish citizenship by descent.
>Now, to be sure, some countries do impose limits on multiple
>citizenship. For example, there are some countries that will
>revoke a child's citizenship when he/she grows up unless he/she
>renounces other citizenships he/she acquired at birth. Japan,
>Singapore, and Germany have laws of this sort, AFAIK,
Germany's law only applies to those who have non-German parents and
who acquire citizenship solely by birth in Germany (which is subject
to stringent conditions in itself).
While the German law requires the citizen to provide formal evidence
that he has lost or given up any other citizenships, it's not clear
whether the Japanese law requires anything more than a statement to
the Japanese government renouncing other citizenships. Such an action
would not cause loss of UK or US citizenship.
Some Scandinavian countries require children born to citizens overseas
to register to retain citizenship by a specific age (usually 21 or 22)
but not to give up any foreign citizenship as part of the process.
>but the
>US and the UK do not. But when such laws exist, the idea is to
>force the retention of only a single citizenship (i.e., "you
>can't remain a citizen of our country unless you renounce all
>other citizenships and keep =only= our citizenship"). I've
>never heard of any country which requires a child born with
>triple citizenship to keep at most two citizenships (as opposed
>to only one) when he/she grows up.
There is one scenario where dual citizenship might be ok, but triple
citizenship not possible. For example, a person born in the UK to
British and Danish parents will may well have dual British/Danish
citizenship. The person can retain Danish citizenship by going
through the necessary processes before the age limit, and still keep
British citizenship.
However, Denmark only allows for dual citizenship if the other
citizenship was acquired at birth. So a dual Danish/UK citizen who
migrates to Canada and eventually becomes a Canadian citizen will keep
his British citizenship, but lose his Danish citizenship upon becoming
Canadian.
It should be clear from all this that each country's law is different
(and generally complex, with provisos and exceptions to general rules)
and that gives rise to a very large number of permutations ...
>I am working in the US, currently under AOS on an L1 visa. My wife is on
>an L2 and not working. I am British and my wife is French (although has
>not lived in France for over 15 years).
>In early Sept we had our child. He is naturally a US citizen, and I
>wanted to clarify if there is such as thing as triple nationality.
>Although not strictly necessary, we would like him to have the choice of
>living in either UK, France or the US when he is older. I understand
>that under EU rules, he has the right of abode in either France or the
>UK with either a UK or French passport. Is there any advantage in have
>both a UK and French passport in addition to a US, and is this even
>possible? Hope this makes sense, and that someone knows the answer.
Assuming you were born or naturalised in the UK, your child is a
British citizen by descent automatically. Just apply to the British
Embassy for a British passport for him. You should be able to find
contact details via http://www.fco.gov.uk
Your future grandchildren may not be British if born outside the UK -
I suggest you visit http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk where there's
information on how this works. Not that it's going to be an issue for
some time
but when your son is older he needs to be aware of hisstatus. Even if he lives for some years in the UK, he's a British
citizen by descent 'for life' as far as the UK authorites are
concerned under the current law.
Child is probably also a French citizen - get in touch with the French
authorities to document this and get a passport. There's information
at:
http://www.southern-cross-group.org/...ip/france.html
French citizenship can also be acquired by marriage.
As far as the US authorities are concerned, your child is a US citizen
first and foremost. It's ok to use British or French passports
outside the US, but he should always identify himself to the US
authorities as an American and use a US passport to show to US
immigration officials. When older, he will be expected to comply with
Selective Service - http://www.sss.gov - and IRS tax filing
regulations, even if by that time he is living outside the US.
Jeremy
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
Oct 16th 2003, 1:16 pm
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Is there such as thing as triple nationality
>Under "Canada", it says that a naturalized citizen who has spent
>more than 10 years living abroad can lose citizenship. This is not
>true -- at least, not since 1977, when Canada's current citizenship
>law took effect.
Canada's law in that respect seemingly changed on July 7, 1967
http://web.archive.org/web/200103081...tizen/CH14.HTM
>Also, under "Australia", it says that foreign naturalization is
>grounds for involuntary loss of citizenship. This used to be true,
>but Australia's citizenship law was amended in early 2002 to remove
>this provision.
There were some exceptions to Australia's law even before 4th April
2002.
Australia also had a law similar to Canada's affecting naturalised
citizens living outside Australia for more than 7 years who did not
register annually to retain Australian citizenship. This was repealed
on October 7, 1958.
Jeremy
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
>more than 10 years living abroad can lose citizenship. This is not
>true -- at least, not since 1977, when Canada's current citizenship
>law took effect.
Canada's law in that respect seemingly changed on July 7, 1967
http://web.archive.org/web/200103081...tizen/CH14.HTM
>Also, under "Australia", it says that foreign naturalization is
>grounds for involuntary loss of citizenship. This used to be true,
>but Australia's citizenship law was amended in early 2002 to remove
>this provision.
There were some exceptions to Australia's law even before 4th April
2002.
Australia also had a law similar to Canada's affecting naturalised
citizens living outside Australia for more than 7 years who did not
register annually to retain Australian citizenship. This was repealed
on October 7, 1958.
Jeremy
This is not intended to be legal advice in any jurisdiction
