Fair enough. Going back to your original post, I 'm just saying that even if you were to vote you wouldn't be taking part on equal terms with Spanish citizens as you would only get to vote in the local elections and not in the state or national elections.

[QUOTE=garo;544819]Fair enough. Going back to your original post, I 'm just saying that even if you were to vote you wouldn't be taking part on equal terms with Spanish citizens as you would only get to vote in the local elections and not in the state or national elections.[/QUOTE]But my comment was [b]only[/b] about local elections. We are well aware that we are unable to vote in state or national .elections, and quite right too!

[QUOTE=xilman;544828]But my comment was [b]only[/b] about local elections. We are well aware that we are unable to vote in state or national .elections, and quite right too![/QUOTE]One should be able to to express one's opinion on how one's environment is managed, independently of origin, sex, gender, and whatever. Especially independently of such an arbitrary thing as nationality. Why should a person with the Belgian nationality living for years in New-Zealand be able to participate in decisions in Belgium but not in New-Zealand where she lives and participates in society ? Then some countries allow multiple nationalities meaning the people concerned should have multiple votes ?

So "quite right" ?

Jacob

+1

Germany doesn't have "birthright citizenship." Last I heard, even fourth-generation [i]Gastarbeiter[/i] have to apply for citizenship in order to become eligible to vote at all, even though their families have been living in Germany since their great-grandparents came there after WWII.

Unfortunately no European country has [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli[/URL]
The recent trend has been towards removing Jus Soli. Ireland removed it in 2005 and India removed it in 1987 and put further restrictions again in 2004. The US, Canada and Mexico, Pakistan and most South American countries are significant (and laudable IMHO) holdouts.

OTOH, Germany made it less restrictive in 200:
[QUOTE][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany"]Germany[/URL]: prior to 2000 Germany's [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law"]nationality law[/URL] was based entirely on [I][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis"]jus sanguinis[/URL][/I], but now children born in Germany on or after 1 January 2000 to non-German parents acquire German citizenship at birth if at least one parent has a permanent residence permit (and had this status for at least three years) and resided in Germany for at least eight years prior to the child's birth. However, [I]jus soli[/I] citizens will lose their German citizenship upon turning 23 unless they: (i) reside in Germany for at least 8 years during their first 21 years of life; or (ii) attend school in Germany for at least 6 years; or (iii) graduate from high school/college in Germany; or (iv) complete professional/vocational training in Germany[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;544878]Germany doesn't have "birthright citizenship." Last I heard, even fourth-generation [I]Gastarbeiter[/I] have to apply for citizenship in order to become eligible to vote at all, even though their families have been living in Germany since their great-grandparents came there after WWII.[/QUOTE]


From what I know, anybody who has been living in Germany for eight years or more, has achieved a decent language level and whos criminal record is not too long will be granted the German citizenship.


If "fourth-generation [I]Gastarbeiter[/I] have to apply for citizenship" then I wonder why their parents didn't ;-)

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;544445]I propose that, in the proud tradition of the movie "[I]Sergeants 3[/I]," any debates between the (as of yet only presumptive) Republican and Democratic candidates for President of the United States be entitled "[B]Predators 2[/B]." Imagine the lively give-and-take:[INDENT][B]Q:[/B] Mr. President, what about all the women who've made those sexual allegations against you?

[B]A:[/B] I'll sue those b:censored:s! Just like I said I would four years ago! Besides, they were asking for it! I'm a celebrity! I can grab their p:censored:s any time I want!

[B]Q:[/B] Mr. Vice-President? Same Question.

[B]A:[/B] You can go through everything in the National Archives. You won't find any complaints filed. Just stay away from my Senate records in the University of Delaware archives! That assault never, ever happened. At least, I have no memory of it. But then, I've gone senile, remember?[/INDENT]Yes indeed, folks, these debates should be real barn-burners!

:popcorn:[/QUOTE]


:thumbs-up: Looking forward to it...

[QUOTE=S485122;544839]One should be able to to express one's opinion on how one's environment is managed, independently of origin, sex, gender, and whatever. Especially independently of such an arbitrary thing as nationality. Why should a person with the Belgian nationality living for years in New-Zealand be able to participate in decisions in Belgium but not in New-Zealand where she lives and participates in society ? Then some countries allow multiple nationalities meaning the people concerned should have multiple votes ?[/QUOTE]

It's only 'arbitrary' if one believes, as the open-borders crowd does, that societies, cultures and family histories are irrelevant. When I became a US citizen back in 1984 I was required to "show my commitment", as it were, by formally renouncing my Austrian citizenship. I always wonder at USians who claim dual/multiple nationality - perhaps that's a case of other countries not being so restrictive - I never checked whether Austria allowed dual citizenship, possibly it does, but I took the aforementioned commitment seriously, so never considered it any issue. I think it's perfectly reasonable to tie basic rights of citizenship to a demonstrated commitment by the person to, well, living as a citizen.

That having been said, tying citizenship to e.g. [i]Volksdeutschkeit[/i] even across multiple generations strikes me as unreasonable. IIRC correctly to become a US citizen required at least 5 years of continuous residence, passing of a lengthy exam (many of whose questions most USians-by-birth would be hard-pressed to get right), answering 'no' to a slew of are-you-a-Nazi questions (even in '84, even when one's age clearly ruled out NSDP membership) and renunciation of previous citizenship.

We are a jealous and angry country. Thou shalt not have any other countries before us.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;544985]...
I was required to "show my commitment", as it were, by formally renouncing my Austrian citizenship. I always wonder at USians who claim dual/multiple nationality - perhaps that's a case of other countries not being so restrictive - I never checked whether Austria allowed dual citizenship, possibly it does, but I took the aforementioned commitment seriously, so never considered it any issue.
...[/QUOTE]Legislation about multiple nationality varies. When I applied for the Belgian nationality (for purely admInistrative reasons) I was renouncing my Dutch nationality because a Dutch national looses the Dutch nationality by asking (and obtaining) another. But there are cases when one acquires a nationality by the law of another country, by marrying for instance, in such cases one can retain the Dutch nationality because obtaining the other nationality was imposed (even if it was a direct consequence of a voluntary action like marrying, but not if the other nationality was obtained by enlisting in the armed forces.) Then some countries do not allow the renouncement of nationality, thus not abiding by Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that "Everyone has the right to a nationality," and "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality." I suppose that last clause can be twisted to mean that one changes nationality by acquiring a second and that denying the renouncement of nationality is thus OK.

Jacob