Suchergebnisse

EUDO Citizenship Observatory ; The relationship between the nationality laws of the European Union Member States and European citizenship has long been the subject of academic discussion. The objective of the present paper is to investigate particularly the impact of the dual nationality regimes – for our purposes to be understood as the possession of a Member State and a non-Member State nationality – on access to European citizenship. Based on an analysis of dual nationality in three different historical-constitutional contexts (post-colonialism, post-emigration and post-communism), we argue that the use of dual nationality – in combination with a preferential nationality regime for certain groups residing outside the EU –, results in discrimination against migrants on the basis of their origin. The different dual nationality policies also affect the EU at large as Member State nationals enjoy – as European citizens – the right of free movement and residence in the Union's territory. At the same time, however, it can be seriously queried whether these 'external EU citizens' can demonstrate a real link with the Member States granting their nationality. Finally, the examination of the case law of the European Court of Justice shows that tensions have already arisen between different Member State nationality laws; it is expected that these tensions will arise even more frequently in the future precisely as a result of the privileged route towards the acquisition of a second 'European' nationality. As the latter development is negatively perceived by many Member States, the EU may decide to undertake action in the area of nationality. This, in turn, could give rise to the legal autonomy of Union citizenship.

During the year 2000, there were significant developments in immigration law and policy with respect to employment-based immigration, family visas, asylum regulations and jurisprudence, refugee admissions, Temporary Protection Status (TPS) designations, and the implementation of the United Nations Torture Convention. The net effect of changes in employment-based immigration was a gain to both the business community and to immigrants under most categories. There was a virtual unanimous consent among lawmakers to increase the number of temporary H-1B specialty workers in the United States and to ameliorate some of the unintended consequences of previous legislation such as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).1 To accomplish these objectives, Congress enacted two significant pieces of immigration legislation late in the year: the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act2 (AC21) and the Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act of 2000 (LIFE Act),3 as well as subsequent LIFE Act Amendments. Together, the new laws provide for a three-year increase in the H-1B visa cap, new rules allowing for "portability" and extensions of H-1B visa status, temporary restoration of the special adjustment of status provisions of former Immigration and Nationality Act4 (INA) § 245(i), and temporary nonimmigrant status for certain alien spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents during the pendency of their green card processing. In addition to these legislative developments, the executive branch and courts focused on an array of issues including permanent and temporary worker labor certifications, asylum claims, and implementation of the United Nations Torture Convention.

This item is part of the Political & Rights Issues & Social Movements (PRISM) digital collection, a collaborative initiative between Florida Atlantic University and University of Central Florida in the Publication of Archival, Library & Museum Materials (PALMM).

Persons with more than one nationality ("multiple nationals") who flee persecution in their home country may have compelling reasons to seek asylum elsewhere rather than go to a second country of nationality where they have no ties or face serious hardships. The 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, however, expressly makes them ineligible for refugee status unless they have a well-founded fear of being persecuted in all their countries of nationality. The U.S. Refugee Act omits this exclusionary language but nonetheless has been read by immigration agencies as if it incorporated the Convention's approach. This Article challenges the view that multiple nationals should not be considered refugees. It argues that asylum should be denied only when it would be reasonable, under all the circumstances, to expect the person to resettle in a second country of nationality after taking into account factors such as family ties, social and cultural constraints, and any hardships the person would face. The Refugee Act's text and historical context establish that Congress intended to allow multiple nationals to qualify as refugees if they face persecution in any one of their countries of nationality. Drawing on archival research as well as a close examination of legislative and administrative history, this Article shows that the Refugee Act's drafters meant to preserve a long standing U.S. policy of accepting refugees with more than one nationality as long as they had not "firmly resettled" in another country of nationality before coming to the United States--a policy especially salient to the Act's proponents because it allowed for the continued admission of Soviet Jews as refugees even though Israel welcomed them as citizens. This Article also argues that other refugee-receiving countries should reconsider their stance toward multiple national asylum-seekers. The Convention's approach to multiple nationality has become increasingly anomalous in light of the wide international acceptance of the principle ...

Prominent normative theories for accommodating minority national groups appeal to the value of national cultures and/or the psychology of group recognition. This article aims to show that an argument from political authority provides a better justification. Building on Joseph Raz's theory of authority, the article argues that members of minority national groups are disadvantaged in relation to their majority counterparts under standard democratic institutions; such institutions do not provide minority national groups with comparable access to the conditions for legitimate political authority. Constitutional arrangements for accommodating minority national groups—such as territorial self-government or power-sharing—are justified insofar as they might offset this disadvantage.

Scholarship on nationalism and the state has examined how immigration and nationality policy create boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. While a handful of countries of immigration have been analysed extensively, explanations of nationality law have not accounted adequately for countries of emigration. This paper's historical analysis of Mexican nationality law and its congressional debate demonstrates that the ways the state has defined nationality at different periods cannot be attributed simply to demographic migration patterns or legacies of past understandings of ethnic or state-territorial nationhood, according to the expectations of received theory. The literature's focus on geopolitically stronger countries of immigration obscures the critical effects of inter-state politics on nationality law in subordinate states. Mexico's nationality laws reflect its experiences as a geopolitically weak country of immigration, despite a net out-migration of its population.

Will Hanley's analysis of the 1909 revision of the 1869 Ottoman Nationality Law takes up one of the central themes that occupied the Office of Legal Counsel: the slippery relationship between the legal definitions of nationality, subjecthood, and citizenship. As Hanley argues, recent scholarship on the 1869 Ottoman Nationality Law has consistently sought its origins in the Tanzimat edicts of 1839 and 1856. He contends that interest in the question of Ottoman citizenship has led to a misreading of the word tebaa, and that the Tanzimat edicts referred to subjects, not citizens. This "citizenship misreading" has obscured the 1869 law's original connection to the Capitulations and an 1863 decree designed to restrict the proliferation of foreign protégés. This law presented foreign protégés with a choice: They could either naturalize as foreign subjects or submit to Ottoman territorial jurisdiction to maintain their status as subjects of the sultan. The unintended consequence was that many of them chose to naturalize with a foreign state, while remaining in residence and continuing to benefit from the rights of Ottomans. Thus, while the number of protégés dropped, the number of naturalized foreigners increased precipitously. This development prompted firmer legislation, which took the shape of the 1869 law. Set against this backdrop, Hanley puts forward the provocative conclusion that neither the 1863 protégé legislation nor the 1869 nationality law were intended to form a citizenry. Rather, he argues that both were primarily aimed at safeguarding the empire's sovereignty over its residents against the threat of European extraterritoriality. Hanley then analyzes a 1909 proposal for the revision of the 1869 law in order to chart the evolution of Ottoman readings of nationality and naturalization from the Tanzimat through the CUP period. While the 1909 proposal was never enacted, Hanley considers what it reveals about ongoing struggles to implement the 1869 law, as well as two specific issues that it failed to fully ...

This article has two interrelated aims. First, the article goes beyond law and places the discussions on nationality in the broader literature on citizenship, also drawing on social sciences, political theory and moral philosophy. The ensuing conceptual, historical and multi-disciplinary account highlights the long pedigree of the idea of citizenship, the manifold conceptions of citizenship that have developed over time (including supra-national, sub-national and transnational citizenship). The article demonstrates how the changing spatialities of citizenship culminated in a focus on the nation-state, and the emergence of legal citizenship or nationality, reflecting the legal bond between an individual and a state. It was also noted that in several respects the parameters of nationality keep changing. More particularly, four developments have been highlighted that circumscribe the sovereign right of states to determine who are their nationals, both legally and through de facto pressures. Secondly, this contribution provides the overarching framework for the special issue while identifying the salient discussion points regarding nationality and international law that will be teased out in the articles of the special issue. The article ends with a brief overview of the articles that make up the special issue.

ln this paper, we analyse the materiał structure of Polands exports of goods to the European Union and to the United States. In a general presentation of Polish exports, we aggregate all other trade partners than the EU and the U.S. to the 'Rest of the World' (RoW). We use descriptive statistics to check whatgoods are subject to export from Poland. We analyse data on various levels of aggregation. We prove that Polish exports aggregated to the CN sections and HS2 product groups to both destinations seem to be of higher technological advancement than export disaggregated to the HS6 product classification. On the higher level of aggregation, the material structure of Polands exports to the EU and the U.S. look more similar than those analysed on the more disaggregated level. We look at the material structures of exports to both partners from the point of view of the producers as well. We study Poland's exports of goods to the EU and the U.S. based on the HS6 classification and analyse the leading producers of the most important goods in sales to both partners. We show that most of them are affiliates of the foreign companies.

From Cyclopaedia of political science, political economy, and of the political history of the United States. v. II. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Critical education has a very strategic role in supporting and accelerating the formation of a civilized democratic society. Its existence is able to change the world, create the culture, carve out the history, engineer the world to be more fair and humane, even to change concepts, ideas, systematics, and strength. Implementation of critical education is based on three dimensions: the pedagogic practical, normative, and cultural ideology dimensions. Critical education process is formulated as a process of cultural dimension. The main function and target of critical education is "self-awareness", or "critical awareness". The concoction of Indonesian nationalism as a reflection of critical education has been clearly being pioneered since revolution era by R.A. Kartini, Budi Utomo, and K. H. Dewantara in the form of the establishment of some schools and the freedom of indigenous children to get the education. More qualified human resources can be cultivated through a critical education.

I will apply Ásta's conferralist account of sex and gender to nationality, and distinguish two different ways in which nationality is conferred – by institutions (legal nationality), and in social interactions (social nationality). I will then turn to the moral and political conflicts that arise where different understandings of nationality and different ways of conferring it overlap and collide. My main thesis is that these conflicts are never simply factual disputes about who and what belongs to a nation, they are always normative conflicts about who ought to belong. This, in turn, means that we cannot think about the ontology of nationality without thinking about what nationality ought to be, a conclusion that is well in line with the basic tenets of conferralism.

Various recent developments within and without the United Kingdom have strengthened the arguments in favour of the adoption of general nationality based criminal jurisdiction. These arise from problems in the application of territorial jurisdiction, increasingly frequent crime-specific reference to nationality based jurisdiction, the development of European Union law, the ever-greater mobility of nationals, the ability to commit crimes remotely, the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into United Kingdom law, an evolution in the citizen-state relationship, and the increasing internationalisation of criminal law. It is not suggested that territory should no longer find a central place in the criminal law rather that the original and present arguments in its favour have been greatly weakened and, at the same time, the arguments in favour of nationality based jurisdiction have been strengthened. This article details the present nature of criminal jurisdiction, highlights the deficiencies with territorial jurisdiction and outlines the case in favour of a general nationality based criminal jurisdiction.

"Paper[s] . read at a meeting held on May 23, 1944 by the National council on naturalization and citizenship as an associate group at the National conference of social work meeting in Cleveland, Ohio." ; Reproduced from type-written copy. ; At head of title: National council on naturalization and citizenship . New York. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The historian Sir Lewis Namier, born Ludwik Bernstein in Russian Poland in 1888 and brought up in east Galicia, was an unusual figure amongst Jewish theorists of nationalism. His father's family were assimilated Jews, and Namier grew up in a household that was thoroughly Polonised. Though registered as Jewish, he was not circumcised and was brought up in ignorance of Jewish traditions; his parents and sister subsequently converted to Catholicism. Unlike other Jewish intellectuals, he had no love for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy nor for German culture in general, and as a young man was an ardent pan-Slavist. Education at Oxford also imprinted in him a lifelong admiration for the British Empire, which he regarded as a force for good because it embodied the libertarian ethos inherent in Britain's national traditions. In his early writings, he defined nationality principally by race, and took religion, and attachment to a particular territory, as the principal markers of racial identity. This analysis derived chiefly from his observation of the history and geopolitics of central and eastern Europe, but he was also able to apply the same calculus to the "Anglo-Saxon" empires of the Atlantic world. These ideas, which he refined in later life but never abandoned, also fuelled a growing attachment to Zionism, accelerated by his own experiences of anti-Semitism, and his observation of the maltreatment of Jews in eastern Europe, of which he became increasingly aware through his role as an expert adviser in the British Foreign Office in 1916–1920.