Talk:Naturalization/Archive 1

Forced Naturalization?
Apparently there are some countries that force a foreigner to take the (native) partner's nationality (=force naturalization) upon marriage - Some information should be added on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.109.27.232 (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Traditional nationality
nationality is this sense: "Nationality is traditionally based either on jus soli ("right of the territory") or on jus sanguinis ("right of blood"), although it now usually mixes both." is a relatively new concept, as until fairly recently the state one lived in was not fixed in that way, it had much more to do with who was the sovereign of the territory and the recognition that the soverign gave to the subject. -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Finland?
It seems strange to me that Finland is mentioned by itself instead of under "other countries", considering it barely has more coverage than some of the countries listed there, and what little Finnish info there is to be found also is unsourced. I'll change it, feel free to comment here if anyone disagrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.86.44 (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Declaration of intention
Why does that redirect here. There are other uses in law of that term and concept than immigration. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The term is not really used outside the US much.
Just a thought - I rarely if ever see this term used outside the US. I think the article being a "US-centric" is appropriate.--85.210.102.71 (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Naturalisation is a widely used term. I can't see how you can say it's US-centric and even if it was, what alternative do you suggest? — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

United States
"The enabling legislation for the naturalization aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment was the Naturalization Act of 1870, which allowed naturalization of "aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent", but is silent about other races."

The Constitution does not need - and cannot have - enabling legislation. This is poorly-phrased and incorrect. 108.205.193.26 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That isn't true, the Constitution does need enabling legislation. The 14th doesn't give specifics on how naturalization works, that's what laws are for.Neosiber (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do entries for other countries specify the requirements of that country to become a naturalized citizen, while the entry for the United States provides no information on the requirements AT ALL, and instead only provides the history of naturalization laws in the United States in this section...???

Do people seeking to become legal citizens need to pass any kind of test regarding American History or Culture...? Do they need to be able to speak English and pass a test showing any degree of proficiency...? Do they have to reside in the country for any period of time...??? Are they allowed to maintain dual citizenship...?

Why are none of the requirements for attaining citizenship in the United States mentioned in the article at all...???

I thought the entry for the United Kingdom was very interesting and very thorough in its explanation of residency requirements, as well as for several other countries... then I came to the US section and found the history lesson boring as hell, and totally useless for anyone coming to the page seeking residency requirements, as there isn't a single one even hinted at.

Could someone please rectify this...? If one would like to leave the "History of Naturalization Laws in the United States" in place, then title it appropriately, please. But please provide the relevant information regarding what the requirements for Naturalization are for the United States as this section indicates, rather than a history lesson in its place instead. Gmeades (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be a heads up disaggregation. 'Naturalization' has Five Different Meanings in the OED
1) As here 2) to introduce a non-indigenous species to a country that then becomes wild 3) to become accustomed to 4) to cause to appear natural (this is important concept in philosophy btw) 5) to study as natural history. Of these, 1, 2, and 4 are still current.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.209.115 (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

OK the biological version is there, but with an 's' not a 'z'
mea culpa, a bit. However, this is the same word, and either usage can equally be spelled with 'z' or 's', and the main philosophical usage is, I would argue, not about citizenship, but 'cause to appear natural' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.209.115 (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Recently a big todo about "English only". I looked up the federal naturalization rules and you have to show a minimum proficiency in English to pass. "English only" is the law already it appears, n'est pas. Once you pass the test you can speak any language you want ( one of those pesky rights). 2601:181:8000:D6D0:EDE9:91C5:E06:9E39 (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Afroyim and denaturalization
I noticed the assertion, "The Supreme Court later, in the case of Afroyim v. Rusk, interpreted this clause to imply that a naturalized citizen cannot be subsequently deprived of U.S. citizenship involuntarily." I see a couple of problems with this.

First, the only other use of the word "clause" in the article is pretty remote from this assertion and speaks of the "jurisdiction" clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm pretty sure that the word as used here is referring to the "citizenship" clause of that amendment. In any case, this needs clarification.

Second, as I (I'm not a lawyer) understand it, Afroyim did not limit that determination to naturalized citizens. See the quote in Afroyim v. Rusk.

I'll leave it to editors with more topical expertise than I to fix whatever needs fixing here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

sentence is to long / does not make sense
In the second paragraph, this sentence seems to have 2 ideas:

"As naturalization laws had been designed to cater for the relatively few people who had voluntarily moved from one country to another (expatriates), western democracies were not ready to naturalize the massive influx of stateless people which followed massive denationalizations and the expulsion of ethnic minorities from newly created nation states in the first part of the 20th century, but they also counted the (mostly aristocratic) Russians who had escaped the 1917 October Revolution and the war communism period, and then the Spanish refugees."

If it can be corrected, and made into two - or even three - sentences, it would read better, and be more clear.

--Tapalmer99 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"Other Countries" policies are inaccurate
The one I notice clearly is Swiss naturalisation time period. I know, as I am trying to work on obtaining Swiss Citizenship, that it is not continuous residence. I believe it is the same for Canadians (residence 3 out of 4 years). I will edit Swiss but can someone please confirm the rest. 109.202.232.126 (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have edited information for Denmark, but the law is more complicated then stated. more information can be found on the website for integration 78.111.169.56 (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Wrong statement
"The most recent massive naturalization case resulted from the Argentine economic crisis in the beginning of the 21st century. Existing or slightly updated right of return laws in Spain and Italy allowed many of their diasporic descendants to obtain—in many cases to regain—naturalization in virtue of jus sanguinis, as in the Greek case. Hence, many Argentine and Latin Americans acquired European nationality."

There was no such thing as a massive naturalization, but rather, an increase on the emigration rates to europe by the people who already were european citizens and an increase in the applications to receive european citizenship through the existing nationality laws. But there was no such thing as a mass and compulsive naturalization of people. I think that statement should be removed from the post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.254.7.165 (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Naturalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jpn.gov.my/en/maklumat-warganegara/permohonan-taraf-kewarganegaraan-di-bawah-perkara-19-perlembagaan-persekutuan-berumur-21-tahun-atau-lebih/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.usm.my/km/33%282%292015/km33022015_01.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020041_en_2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060425230738/http://rajyasabha.nic.in/legislative/amendbills/XXXIX_2003.pdf to http://rajyasabha.nic.in/legislative/amendbills/XXXIX_2003.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Different legal meanings of naturalization on Wikipedia
It isn't so easy to find out exactly what naturalization means from Wikipedia, even when confined to the context of law. In this article, anyone who acquires citizenship after birth is naturalized.

In the UK a non-citizen may acquire citizenship by adoption, naturalisation, or registration. They are all separate procedures, so people who are adopted or registered in the UK are not 'naturalised citizens' in that article, but are in this one.

In Canada, the law would imply that no one has been 'naturalized' since 1977, when the procedure was absorbed into 'grant of citizenship'. But the article has no problem assuming the same definition as this article.

In the US statute and in its article, getting citizenship by adoption is not called naturalization, but is in other sources, and probably is considered naturalization by the courts (because there are only two types of citizens, natural-born and naturalized).

In still other countries (e.g., the former USSR), the term is unheard of in domestic law.

Some international sources support that this article's definition is the global one.

So do we change all the other articles to explain that their definitions are non-standard, or do we change this article to explain that the definitions vary? Knr5 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC); edited 03:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, this is about "getting the passport", but that would be a weird Article title. Do you want to split this list up, based on the special local terminology surrounding that process? There are some 193 nations, it will be hard to find specific information on wikipedia, and impossible to compare them, if we follow that line of thought. A certain level of compareability has to be maintained here. Alexpl (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is not about "getting the passport". The article is about naturalization, the legal act or process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. That will vary from country to country, and any one country may offer several different naturalization processes.Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesnt really help to determine the original question... The article already states that "(...) The rules of naturalization vary from country to country". Alexpl (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. The issue is not that different countries have different rules of naturalization, that is pretty evident. The issue is that different countries have different definitions of naturalization. It just seems like some sources/countries believe that naturalization is the procedure for certain foreign adults who gain permanent residence and then apply, while others believe that naturalization is the process by which any non-citizen gets citizenship.


 * So, you might tell an immigration lawyer in the UK that naturalization is "the process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country." And then they might say, "Not quite. In this country, naturalization is not the process, but just one type of acquisition of citizenship by non-citizens."


 * We probably could annotate the articles of other countries that use naturalization in a narrower definition to this effect, and make a full explanation with some more international sources in this article. The only problem is, I haven't actually found a source that confirms there is a consistent international definition of naturalization as broad as this article's. Even those three sources in my original post don't really do it. This article only cites US law as the definition, which is probably untenable. So the issue is that some more sources are called for. Knr5 (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC); edited 19:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This page is a mess
Why does the 'Other countries' section have countries which are already discussed?

Thanks. 129.127.32.138 (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

There appear to quite a few questionable sources, and a possibility of spamming, for references under the Summary by country section. Arllaw (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Issue with a ref for Suriname in the Summary by Country table.
Hi

An additional reference has been added to the Suriname entry Summary by Country table. The website is correct (with Suriname Citizenship by Naturalization information), but the syntax seems incorrect and so it is not showing up as a reference, but as text. I did try to fix it, but my rookie editing skills failed, sorry!!!!

Thanks to anyone who can tidy this up...

Al WCIL (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)