Talk:Naturalization

Naturalization is mentioned

Naturalization is mentioned in the Constitution proper. Congress is given the power to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, which was administered by state courts. There was some confusion about which courts could naturalize; the final ruling was that it could be done by any "court of record having common-law jurisdiction and a clerk (prothonotary) and seal."

The Constitution also mentions "natural born citizen". The first naturalization Act (drafted by Thomas Jefferson) used the phrases "natural born" and "native born" interchangeably. To be "naturalized" therefore means to become as if "natural born".

Note added to include the UK spelling Naturalisation. Does anyone know how to create a redirect page for that spelling to Naturalization? MPF 19:03, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

The matter of racial non-neutrality of naturalization could use some clarification. The law, while indeed quite bad and racist, was never quite as simple as "non-whites not naturalized." The meaning of "white", in fact, shifted quite a bit. And laws like the Chinese Exclusion Act were designed specifically to refine (in a xenophobic way) the criteria for naturalization.

Probably not all of this should be in the Naturalization article itself, but some pointers and citations would be useful.

--Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:44, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

In the section on the Naturalization Act of 1798, there is a mention that "It specifically targeted Irish and French immigrants who were involved in Republican politics." In what sense are we talking about republican politics? This can't be the Republican party as they weren't organized until the mid-1800s. Is this concerning republican as a political theory and in which case, the word should be lowercase anyways?

The Jeffersonian "Anti-Federalist" party was known as the Republican Party, then the Democratic Republican Party, then the Democratic Party. Yes, it is confusing. Maybe "anti-federalist" would be a clearer reference.Pi9 18:30, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Naturalization outside United States?

The article as it stands refers only to naturalization in the United States. Who can write a history of naturalization in other countries? For starters, try to provide paragraphs (or longer, if available) information about naturalization in the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Israel — these countries have either had or have noticeable immigrant population.

C'mon, give it a try! Many thanks in advance.

— Diamantina 03:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Citizenship in US

Here is a link which may help to clarify citizenship in the USA upon ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment:

http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm#k

Germany 3 years

I think it changed. --2003:C0:71C:A400:B1CF:651:F0B2:EF41 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Naturalization of children

Summary by country table is excellent, however it lacks an important dimension: what happens to a legal status of the naturalized citizens' children if they have not reached the age of majority? Do you think that the table should be augmented to accommodate this info or creating a new article is a better approach? Palooski (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Uruguay doesn't have a naturalization path for its immigrants

Since 2015, when the Uruguayan State began to apply the provisions of the agreement it signed with the International Civil Aviation Organization, the passport of legal citizens indicates, in the nationality field, the nationality corresponding to the country of birth, since the DNIC Manual establishes that "nationality" is an innate human characteristic that cannot be changed or modified. The Uruguayan State defined nationality in this way based on an interpretation of the Constitution made by the jurist Justino Jiménez de Aréchaga in the mid-twentieth century. Jiménez de Aréchaga's interpretation, found in one of Uruguay's fundamental academic interpretative texts, states: "In the first place, nationality is presented to us as a natural bond, derived from birth, from blood". Likewise, this jurist believed that "nationality corresponds to a certain sociological or psychological reality". Speaking on behalf of the drafters of the Constitution of 1830, this jurist concluded: "The quality of nationality thus depends on one fact: birth in the territory of the State". Finally, "nationality is irrevocable".

According to Uruguayan law, the concepts of nationality and citizenship are distinguishable, the first being of a real or sociological nature and the second of a legal nature. This differentiation forms the traditional concept that comes to us from the illustrious exponent of our Constitutional Law, Justino Jiménez de Aréchaga.

He argued that nationality and citizenship are two completely different individual conditions. According to Aréchaga's view nationality is a permanent state of the individual, which does not suffer any alteration whatever the point of the earth they inhabit, and citizenship is, on the contrary, variable and alters with the different domiciles that men acquire in the different societies into which mankind is divided.

The source of citizenship, he added, is in the actual domicile and not in nationality.

Therefore, he says: "each state feels who its nationals are, and declares it by its law; on the other hand, each state decides who its citizens are, and it disposes of them by its law, for nationality corresponds to a certain sociological or psychological reality." (JUSTINO JIMÉNEZ DE ARECHAGA, La Constitución Nacional. Volume II pg. 186) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuratelibrarian (talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

By establishing itself in art. 81 of our Constitution that nationality is not lost even by naturalizing in another country and that citizenship is lost by any other form of subsequent naturalization, the constituent affirms the irrevocability of nationality considering that this obeys a natural bond that derives from the birth of the person, a fact in which his will does not intervene.

There are different consequences that the same fact -naturalization in another country- causes in nationality and legal citizenship: the first is not lost, the second is.

Consequently with the above, the Uruguayan Passport reflects said requirement; so that, in the site assigned to the nationality of its owner, the place is recorded geographic location of his birth.

Legal citizenship has special characteristics, the persons who acquire it keep the nationality of origin. The legal citizen acquires political rights but does not acquire the nationality as the natural citizens (special case in the world). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accuratelibrarian (talk • contribs) 20:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

This local and unusual conception makes Uruguay, along with Myanmar, the only to countries that deny immigrants any means of naturalization. This has created confusion at the international level and has limited the exercise of the right to free movement of legal citizens, as their travel abroad is often difficult or sometimes impossible. Many nations do not accept passports issued by a nation that declares the holder to be a national of another nation. This is despite the fact that Uruguay is a member state of Mercosur and an associated state of the Andean Community, so all persons holding a Uruguayan passport or Uruguayan identity card are entitled to move, work and live freely without the need for a visa in any South American country except Suriname and Guyana. Some Uruguayan citizens may even, as a result of the application of a national law of a third nation and this Uruguayan interpretation, become stateless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_nationality_law

https://www.somostodos.uy/ Accuratelibrarian (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)