Jim90068

It IS a lot of legwork that is required.
It was my grandmother who was born in Ireland ( as well as my grandfather).
In order to become an Irish Citizen ( through the Register of Foreign Births)
I had to provide:
My grandmother's birth certificate from Ireland
Her marriage license ( from NYC)
My grandmother's death certificate (NYC)
My Mother's birth certificate ( NYC)
My mother's marriage certificate ( license) (NYC)
My birth certificate (NYC).

It took around 6 months to get all this documentation. Ironically, it was easier to get the Irish birth certificate than it was to get the NYC documents.

Once you have them, and have filled out the required forms, and sent them to the Irish Consulate.....they take up to a year to process. This way they discourage the casual application.

Once you receive acknowledgent that you have been approved and submitted to the Register of Foreign births, you can apply for an Irish Passport.

Guava

The comment about women in Quebec not able to have their husband's name on passport is only true for those who got married after 1994 when the Civil Code was officially changed. Before that, married women can have their husband's name if they choose to. Personally, I disagree with the logic of the change appearnlty based on protecting the freedom and status of women but I think people should have the choice.

I haven't seen a country that would prevent you to renounce your citizenship, care to say which one is it?

hfly

You can renounce citizenship of any country. Whether that country "accepts" your renunciation is another matter. Many countries believe that if you are born a citizen of that country, you will always be a citizen of that country no matter what you do. An example of this would be Turkey, another example would be the Phillipines, there are many others.

Then there are countries which will allow you to renouce your citizenship and get it back at anytime as long as you have not done something really bad (really bad depends on what country you are talking about) these include countries such as the United States.

YVR Cockroach

Not wanting to extend this thread/topic but when I was reading about the bill when it was being debated was that it would remove a deterrent for Mexican citizens residing in the U.S. to become U.S. citizens without fear of losing their Mexican nationality. So the act allows them to become U.S. citizens and have the right to vote in the U.S. (leaving the right to vote in mexican elections for another debate).

erik123

Quite a few in the middle east - I believe Iran and Saudi Arabia are among them.

GUWonder

Some north African countries too like Morocco, I have been told.

YVR Cockroach

I won't name it but it's a very small S-E Asian country and a major hub. Oddly, it's very easy for women and those not of the ethnic majority to renounce their citizenships. It's even encouraged in some cases.

blondelatin

to go back to terenz' previous comment... i believe we all got distracted from the original issue at hand, albeit in an interesting digression into various countries' laws, etc.

Am I the only person who gets really angry at the beginning of this thread? What an elitist, suspicious, and close-minded thing to say. I hate to say this (yes, flame me!) but only an American/W. European/[now I guess Aussie] would ever conceive of such a notion. Most people born elsewhere (eg 3rd world) instantly understand _why_ a person would need to be sensitive to political situations, religous differences amongst countries, etc. and use a second passport if available. Alternatively, most others wouldn't make the initial assumption that the second passport has been acquired for nefarious reasons! I like shorter lines myself in Europe vs. the US!

OK, anger vented. I myself am an Italian and Honduran dual citizen, permanent US resident. If I wanted to become a US citizen, they would make me give up another nationality (apparently being born w. 3 is OK, acquiring the 3rd is not). I will not give up the Honduran for emotional reasons, although I get harassed EVERYWHERE. The Italian is worth it's weight in gold: "EU" should explain it all.
The U.S. may be more trouble than it's worth given my greencard basically subjects me to everything but doesn't allow me to vote... which is fine, but I still pay world wide taxes

[This message has been edited by blondelatin (edited 02-21-2003).]

richard

The worldwide tax situation with permanent residents and US citizens is very sad and wrong.

In theory, even a US citizen who is also a citizen of another country has to pay US taxes on worldwide income. So taxes alone is not a reason for a US citizen to have another passport. But as we have discussed above, there are other reasons.

I am sure that many (if not most) US citizens do not have even one passport and are very parochial. So I can understand them questioning the need for two -- it is really not understanding rather than anything else.

Massimum

"while Italy will go back three generations"

Actually italian law just say that "it is an otalian citizien the descendent of an italian citizien".
It means you only need to prove you actually descend from somebody who was registered as italian citizien, even if this was over a hundred years ago

dctorres

It's not just to dual-US citizens. All US citizens must declare their earnings (even if just a resident abroad). Many countries have tax treaties in place (ie: France). You are exempt up to $76k (I think, perhaps ir raised). Beyond that, you have to pay, but you can deduct a lot.

tide

Not exactly true. It's only somewhat difficult to renounce if you are under the legal age (21) and you've spent significant time there.

All above is moot if we're not talking about the same country. But if we are (if being the operative word), I've been there, done that - straightforward process.

YVR Cockroach

If we are talking about the same country, I've definitely fulfilled the 1st. As for the 2nd, does being away for just about 1/2 the time count. A elected government representative even helped the 2nd time.

eMailman

It does not end there. If a US citized renounces citizenship (and the renounciation is accepted), the former citizen is still required by US law to continue to pay income tax in the US for the next 10 years, and will have his/her name listed in the Congressional Record on the "List of Shame" thanks to a provision of law sponsored by Rep. Sam Gibbons (D-FLA) in 1995.

This makes the US the only country to claim the right to tax former citizens who no longer reside in the country......

hfly

As for the former citizen tax thing, you all can thank the Getty family, Fred Alger, Marc Rich and a few dozen others for that.

[This message has been edited by hfly (edited 02-25-2003).]