5 ms·

There is quite a bit of international law about this, from quite a while back. The article notes, "Then again, it is a country’s sovereign right to decide who t

There is quite a bit of international law about this, from quite a while back. The article notes, "Then again, it is a country’s sovereign right to decide who to let in and who to keep out—and not all countries consider fairness a priority when it comes to immigration policy," and that is largely true. But countries have obligations to their citizens in how they relate to other countries, and some of those reciprocal obligations have been tested in international law. The Guatemala v. Lichtenstein case (the Nottebohm case)[1] decided by the International Court of Justice, the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice first established under the League of Nations, decided in 1955 that international law can examine the naturalization law of nation-states when citizenship is asserted by a citizen as protection against the actions of another government. The facts in the Nottebohm case were that Mr. Nottebohm had been born in Germany in 1881 and was a German citizen by facts of birth. He lived in Guatemala from 1905 until 1943 without becoming a citizen of Guatemala, traveling to Germany and other places on business from time to time. In October 1939 (just after the beginning of hostilities in Europe in World War II), Nottebohm applied for citizenship in Lichtenstein, which granted him citizenship despite its usual requirement of three years of residence before citizenship. When Nottebohm tried to reenter Guatemala after a period of travel in 1943, Guatemala (which by then had declared war on Germany as part of World War II) did not allow him reentry, but rather interned him as an enemy alien and transferred him to Guatemala's ally, the United States. After the war, the government of Lichtenstein sued the government of Guatemala for not protecting its (Lichtenstein's) citizen. In its defense, Guatemala claimed that it owed no duty to Lichtenstein to protect Nottebohm as a friendly alien, because Nottebohm did not have sufficient genuine connection to Lichtenstein to be treated as a citizen of Lichtenstein. The international court agreed that despite the general rule that countries may decide their own laws of citizenship and immigration, when a person from one country asserts a right of citizenship against the action of another country, the citizenship relationship can be examined by principles of international law. The bottom line for you and for me: if you buy citizenship somewhere, and then travel somewhere else, you may not enjoy consular protection or any other diplomatic representation from the country whose citizenship you bought and paid for. You may be treated as a person with the birth citizenship you started out with (or some other citizenship acquired along the way), rather than the citizenship you chose for yourself, if your connection with your new country is weak and exists on documents more than it exists in fact. So be careful how you shop for citizenship and think ahead before you travel internationally. [1] http://www.worldlii.org/int/cases/ICJ/1955/1.html http://www.worldlii.org/int/cases/ICJ/1955/1.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottebohm_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottebohm_case

kashkhan 12y ago
> it is a country’s sovereign right to decide who to let in and who to keep out would you accept it if a country kept out black people or people who are gay?
- cbd1984 12y ago
  > would you accept it if a country kept out black people or people who are gay? The world accepts the existence of North Korea. What do you think?
  - kashkhan 12y ago
    We have many evil countries because we can't do anything about it, but we don't say that it is the sovereign right of those countries to exist. Sovereign rights are not sacred. They are a holdback from the middle ages that allow the tyranny of the sovereign.
    - cbd1984 12y ago
      > Sovereign rights are not sacred. Granted. > They are a holdback from the middle ages that allow the tyranny of the sovereign. Not in a constitutional form of government, where the sovereign (in most cases the majority of the voters, as represented by a congress or parliament and referenda) is restrained to protect the rights of minority groups. Contrast this with anarchism, where the majority can tyrannize over minorities which have no recourse.
      - kashkhan 12y ago
        > is restrained to protect the rights of minority groups. yes restrained somewhat. But there still are many minorities in the US whose rights are not protected. > Contrast this with anarchism, where the majority can tyrannize over minorities which have no recourse. I think you have it in reverse. In most constitutional democracies, the majorities can legally tyrannize over minorities with the minorities having no recourse at all. Unless your argument is that the US hasn't been a constitutional government for most of its history. Anarchy is about eliminating the monopoly of violence that governments use to obtain obedience from minorities. >> Anarchists are opposed to violence; everyone knows that. The main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations. It is life based on freedom of the individual, without the intervention of the gendarme. For this reason we are the enemies of capitalism which depends on the protection of the gendarme to oblige workers to allow themselves to be exploited--or even to remain idle and go hungry when it is not in the interest of the bosses to exploit them. We are therefore enemies of the State which is the coercive violent organization of society. >> - Errico Malatesta

kashkhan 12y ago

> it is a country’s sovereign right to decide who to let in and who to keep out would you accept it if a country kept out black people or people who are gay?

cbd1984 12y ago
> would you accept it if a country kept out black people or people who are gay? The world accepts the existence of North Korea. What do you think?
- kashkhan 12y ago
  We have many evil countries because we can't do anything about it, but we don't say that it is the sovereign right of those countries to exist. Sovereign rights are not sacred. They are a holdback from the middle ages that allow the tyranny of the sovereign.
  - cbd1984 12y ago
    > Sovereign rights are not sacred. Granted. > They are a holdback from the middle ages that allow the tyranny of the sovereign. Not in a constitutional form of government, where the sovereign (in most cases the majority of the voters, as represented by a congress or parliament and referenda) is restrained to protect the rights of minority groups. Contrast this with anarchism, where the majority can tyrannize over minorities which have no recourse.
    - kashkhan 12y ago
      > is restrained to protect the rights of minority groups. yes restrained somewhat. But there still are many minorities in the US whose rights are not protected. > Contrast this with anarchism, where the majority can tyrannize over minorities which have no recourse. I think you have it in reverse. In most constitutional democracies, the majorities can legally tyrannize over minorities with the minorities having no recourse at all. Unless your argument is that the US hasn't been a constitutional government for most of its history. Anarchy is about eliminating the monopoly of violence that governments use to obtain obedience from minorities. >> Anarchists are opposed to violence; everyone knows that. The main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations. It is life based on freedom of the individual, without the intervention of the gendarme. For this reason we are the enemies of capitalism which depends on the protection of the gendarme to oblige workers to allow themselves to be exploited--or even to remain idle and go hungry when it is not in the interest of the bosses to exploit them. We are therefore enemies of the State which is the coercive violent organization of society. >> - Errico Malatesta