Denaturalization

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Not to be confused with Denaturation or Denationalized citizenship.
expelled from Nuremberg
in October 1938
Legal status of persons
Birthright
Nationality
Immigration

Denaturalization is the

9/11 attacks, the denaturalization of people accused of terrorism has increased. Because of the right to nationality, recognized by multiple international treaties including Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, denaturalization is often considered a human rights
violation.

Definition

Denaturalization is the case in which citizenship or nationality is revoked by the state against the wishes of the citizen. In practice, there may not be a clear-cut distinction between non-consensual revocation and renunciation of citizenship. Some sources distinguish denaturalization, as the reversal of naturalization, from denationalization, as the revocation of citizenship more generally.[1][2]

History

See also: History of citizenship

Denaturalization can be considered a new form of the ancient custom of

prisons and the reduction in territory considered terra nullius.[3] The British practice of penal transportation led to 380,000 people being sent into exile in other parts of the empire through the mid-nineteenth century.[4] The modern practice of denaturalization developed in the late nineteenth century at the same time as immigration controls.[5] Following the growth of the welfare state, emigration and denaturalization were legalized by many countries for pragmatic reasons in order to avoid having to support poor returnees.[6] The German Empire denaturalized all emigrants who had been abroad for ten years to avoid the return of unsuccessful emigrants.[7][8] Naturalized citizens who returned to their country of origin also faced loss of their new nationality as they were considered to have cut their ties with that country. In Canadian nationality law, this practice continued until 1974.[9] French law allowed for denaturalization since the late nineteenth century but was rarely used before World War I.[10]

According to the modern state system, states have a duty to admit their own nationals and may expel non-nationals.[11] Throughout much of the Western world, denaturalization laws were passed in the early twentieth century, including the Naturalization Act of 1906 in the United States, French laws in 1915 and 1927, and the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act in 1914 and 1918.[12] World War I enhanced scrutiny of the loyalty of naturalized citizens, leading to an increase in denaturalization;[13] nearly all belligerents used denaturalization.[14] In many cases, political dissidence (especially Communist beliefs) or suspected sympathy with an enemy country was the reason for denaturalization, although in practice denaturalization primarily targeted people based on their birthplace.[11][14] Denationalization laws adopted as an emergency measure during the war persisted afterwards.[14]

The height of denaturalization was in the first half of the twentieth century.[15] Sociologist David Scott FitzGerald states, "Racialized denationalizations accompanied expulsions and population transfers on a massive scale following the remaking of nation-states around the two world wars."[16] Two million former citizens of the Russian Empire, the "white émigrés", were denaturalized and made stateless by the Soviet Union in 1921.[14][15][17] In the Western world, denaturalization virtually disappeared after World War II.[12] Attempts to denaturalize Japanese Americans and Japanese Canadians en masse in the aftermath of the war failed due to unfavorable court rulings and changes in public opinion.[18][19] Court rulings in France and the United States limited the discretionary power of denaturalization.[12][20] One argument advanced for the decrease in denaturalization is the increase in human rights norms and growing legal protection against statelessness.[21] The United Kingdom, which has a high rate of denaturalization in the twenty-first century, did not denaturalize anyone between 1973 and 2002.[22] In 2002, it changed the laws so that the Home Secretary could denaturalize individuals without passing through an independent review process prior to the denaturalization taking effect. After the law was changed, there was a surge in the number of denaturalizations.[23]

The

9/11 attacks brought on a heightened fear of terrorism; governments tried to reduce any legal obstacles to the unlimited exercise of executive power deemed necessary to combat the terrorist threat.[24] Immigration law was seen as a powerful tool to exclude those people deemed threats to national security, but it could only be wielded against non-citizens. Hence, the introduction or expansion of denaturalization.[25] The countries that introduced, expanded, revived, or considered denaturalization laws include Canada, France, Austria, Germany, Norway, Netherlands, Australia, Egypt, and the Gulf States.[26]

Consequences

Denaturalization does not necessarily result in an individual losing the right of

legal residence in the country that revokes their citizenship, but it often does.[27] Denaturalized people are often forced to return to countries with which they have few ties with far-reaching consequences for their family, professional, and social life and well-being.[28][29] Deportation of denaturalized citizens may require lengthy legal proceedings depending on the case, and the country that they would be deported to may refuse to accept them, for example if it does not recognize them as a citizen.[30] Denaturalization of a person who is abroad usually prevents them from returning to the country.[31] When applied to entire ethnic groups, denaturalization is often used as part of an attempt to encourage people to leave the country.[32] In the past, statelessness was mostly caused by denaturalization.[33]

It is disputed whether denaturalization is, in effect, a penal sanction, non-penal national security measure, or something else.[34] Although the majority view is to view denaturalization as punishment, criminologist Milena Tripkovic argues that denaturalization is "a sui generis sanction, which seeks to relieve the polity of those members who fail to satisfy fundamental citizenship requirements".[35]

De facto denaturalization is effective loss of citizenship in the absence of a formal withdrawal. An example is

temporary exclusion orders that some countries issue in order to bar their own nationals from entry,[36] or passport revocation that is used to the same effect.[37] Hundreds of citizens of various European countries, as of 2021, are stranded in the Middle East because their government refuses to repatriate them in the absence of formal denaturalization.[38] Alternately, some countries have effectively abdicated responsibility for their citizens held in indefinite detention in Guantanamo Bay.[36] In many African countries and elsewhere, including the Dominican Republic and Texas, officials deliberately deny the required documentation to people entitled to citizenship, which can have similar consequences as denaturalization. Other children are not registered at birth for logistical reasons.[39]

Targets of denaturalization

Denaturalization is often justified on grounds such as: citizenship as a privilege that can be revoked at any time by the government;[40][41] "those whose actions demonstrate disloyalty forfeit citizenship through those actions; terrorists do not deserve citizenship; citizenship is devalued when undeserving people hold citizenship, and its value is enhanced by stripping it from undeserving citizens".[42] Denaturalization is therefore accompanied by discourse of securitization and the belief that threats to security come from outside of the nation. The targets of denaturalization are presented as foreign even when they were born and raised in the country that stripped their citizenship.[43]

In

liberal democratic states, denaturalization has always been rare, when compared to the number of naturalizations or even more so the number of citizens.[44]

Ethnic minorities

Jews deported from Germany during the Holocaust were denaturalized. Pictured, the deportation of Jews from Würzburg, Bavaria, on 25 April 1942
Rohingya in Bangladesh. The denaturalization of the Rohingya by Myanmar and their later expulsion caused them to become refugees.[45]

The

Romanian Jews were denaturalized between 1864 and 1879 during the contested process of Jewish emancipation in Romania, which led to an international outcry and specific protections for Romanian Jews in the 1878 Treaty of Berlin.[46][47] In Austria-Hungary, Romani people were often targeted with arbitrary deprivation of citizenship.[48]

The disintegration of the

Polish Jews living abroad.[56][57]

In the United States, citizenship had long been restricted to free whites and those of African descent. A number of

reasonably relied upon his American citizenship and he would be unjustly harmed by its removal, winning his case in court.[60] The federal government subsequently dropped its denaturalization cases against other Indian-Americans.[61]

The

Nazi ghettos or concentration camps were also denaturalized.[65][66] In German-occupied Europe, Jews who retained citizenship in a neutral or Axis country were often protected from deportation and death while those who were stateless were at increased risk.[67] Vichy France denaturalized 15,000 people, including 6,000 Jews, in order to "purify the national community"; 1,000 of these denaturalized Jews were murdered.[68][69] The Vichy denaturalization law was abrogated after the end of the war.[70] Jews in Hungary, Romania, French Algeria, and Italy also were stripped of their citizenship.[66]

At least eight million Germans were

ethnic Russians denied citizenship to as much as a third of the population.[74][75]

By the 21st century, denaturalization on racial grounds became severely stigmatized. Beginning in 2013, an estimated 200,000 Dominican citizens of Haitian descent have been retroactively denaturalized in a measure that drew international criticism because it was motivated by desire to reduce the number of black Haitians in the country.[76] In 2019, nearly 2 million people, making up 6 percent of the population of Assam, were excluded from India's National Register of Citizens. Many people who should be entitled to Indian citizenship lack the necessary documents since birth registration is spotty and Indian law puts the burden of proof on the individual to prove their citizenship. Bengali Muslims, many of whom are illiterate, are at the most risk of being denaturalized. People deemed non-citizens are at risk of indefinite detention.[77][78]

Political dissidents

Especially in the early and mid-twentieth century, the United States often used denaturalization against left-wing immigrants, such as anarchists and members of the

First Amendment has been criticized as unconstitutional and led to court challenges.[84]

The use of denaturalization by

liberal democracies is cited by authoritarian states that employ denaturalization as a tool of political repression.[26]

Terrorists and foreign fighters

Denaturalization is sometimes used against people accused of terrorism or taking up arms on behalf of another state. Examples include some international volunteers in the Spanish Civil War and citizens of some Arab states, including Osama bin Laden, who fought in the Soviet–Afghan War.[85] Denaturalization on this basis expanded during the early twenty-first century due to increasing terrorist attacks in Europe and the phenomenon of people traveling to the Middle East to fight for the Islamic State group. Justifications for denaturalization and denial of return include national security and the belief that joining a terrorist group is an act of disloyalty that merits denaturalization.[86] In some countries, denaturalization can take place only after a conviction for a terrorism-related crime; in other jurisdictions, a conviction is not required and few individuals denaturalized have been convicted of a crime.[87]

In the scholarly literature, it is disputed that denaturalization is an effective

death penalty. Turkey has rejected hosting foreign fighters denaturalized by European countries, and managed to deport denaturalized Europeans back to their countries of origin.[92]

In 2019, US

Open Society Justice Initiative and Muslim Advocates, a sister organization of National Association of Muslim Lawyers
.

Fraudulent naturalization

Many countries allow denaturalization in cases where an applicant for citizenship committed fraud during the naturalization process.[95][80] According to legal scholar Audrey Macklin, "The logic of citizenship revocation for fraud or misrepresentation is that it unwinds the effect of the misleading conduct and restores the situation that would have been obtained had the truth been disclosed."[18] Denaturalization for fraud is the least controversial form of denaturalization, even when it results of statelessness.[96][80] Cases of denaturalization of naturalized Americans[97][98][99] and Canadians who had committed war crimes during World War II and lied on their applications for naturalization attracted widespread media attention, but were relatively rare.[18]

Loss of ties

Further information: Convention on the Nationality of Married Women and Statelessness

As of 2014, more than a dozen European Union countries provide for denaturalization if a citizen resides abroad for an extended period.[95] Some countries provide for the automatic loss of nationality if a person joins a foreign military or civil service or holds public office in a different country.[100] Other countries forbid their nationals from holding multiple citizenship, so if a person acquires citizenship of a different country, they are automatically denaturalized.[101]

Until 1918, most countries denaturalized women who married foreigners.[9][102] In the decade after World War I, eighteen countries ended the mandatory loss of citizenship for married women.[102] Some countries continue to denaturalize women who marry foreigners, which can result in statelessness.[103]

Similarly, Canada denaturalizes those born abroad to Canadian parents after the age of 28. Before they turn 28, persons born outside of Canada can reaffirm their citizenship to prevent denaturalization. This provision is little-known, however, leading to many "Lost Canadians," including persons residing in Canada, who lose their citizenship. These individuals also cannot pass on their citizenship to their children, which can result in statelessness at birth.[104]

Other

Further information: British nationality law

According to the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, the Home Secretary can revoke British nationality if "the Secretary of State is satisfied that such deprivation is conducive to the public good".[24][105] The broadness of this provision has been the subject of widespread public criticism,[106] and its use is not restricted cases where the individual is argued to be a threat to national security.[107] Macklin states that the law "enables revocation where the state lacks the substantive or evidentiary basis to prosecute the individual for committing any crime".[108]

Human rights

In her book The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), philosopher Hannah Arendt linked nationality to the "right to have rights".[109] In 1955, she argued that "No state, no matter how draconian its law, should have the right to deprive citizenship."[110] Political scientist Patrick Weil and legal scholar Nicholas Handler write that "the right to be secure in one's citizenship has been a cornerstone of the postwar European liberal political order".[111] Because it interferes with the right to nationality, recognized by multiple international treaties, denaturalization is a serious human rights issue. Some have argued that denaturalization resulting in statelessness is never compatible with international human rights law.[109]

Denaturalization resulting in statelessness is contrary to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, unless the nationality was obtained through fraud or the state filed a declaration at the time of ratification noting existing laws prescribing denaturalization for rendering services for, or received emoluments from, another state, or conduct that seriously prejudices the vital interests of that state.[112] The prohibition of statelessness leads to most denaturalization targeting holders of multiple citizenship.[113][114] An exception is British law, which since 2014 allows denaturalization of naturalized British citizens who lack any other citizenship if the Home Secretary believes they could acquire citizenship of another country.[113][24] Macklin states, "Notably, the Home Secretary's belief need not be correct, only reasonable."[24] Some countries only allow the denaturalization of naturalized citizens, exempting those who are citizens from birth.[26] Denaturalization while abroad, while intended to prevent return, does not affect the third country's right to return the person to the denationalizing state.[115][116]

Other human rights that can be violated as a result of denaturalization include

ne bis in idem.[117] Deprivation while a person is abroad raises additional issues with the right to personal security and de facto denial of the right to appeal the decision.[118][108] This method is preferred by the British government because it minimizes accountability and in most cases is successful at permanently removing the person from British territory.[24]

The "Principles on Deprivation of Nationality as a National Security Measure"[119] state that in general, "States shall not deprive persons of nationality for the purpose of safeguarding national security."[109] An exception can only exist if the person is convicted of a crime related to national security and is a serious threat, and if other international law obligations are upheld, including the prohibition of statelessness, non-discrimination, right to a fair trial, and proportionality.[120] Paulussen argues that, in a national security context, "deprivation of nationality can never be seen as the least intrusive means available and be necessary and proportionate".[121] Others who commit the same crime but have no ties to a foreign country cannot be denaturalized, which means that in practice people are targeted for denaturalization based on their national origin, violating the principle of non-discrimination and creating a hierarchy of citizenship.[121]

References

  1. ^ a b c Zalc 2021, p. 30.
  2. ^ Gibney 2017, pp. 361–362.
  3. ^ Macklin 2021, pp. 427–428.
  4. ^ Troy 2019, p. 308.
  5. ^ Gibney 2017, pp. 364–365.
  6. ^ Lohr 2012, p. 90.
  7. ^ Lohr 2012, p. 103.
  8. ^ Caglioti 2017, p. 511.
  9. ^ a b Macklin 2021, p. 427.
  10. ^ Zalc 2021, pp. 20–21.
  11. ^ a b Macklin 2021, p. 428.
  12. ^ a b c Weil & Handler 2018, p. 296.
  13. ^ Zalc 2021, p. 21.
  14. ^ a b c d Caglioti 2017, p. 519.
  15. ^ a b Gibney 2017, p. 365.
  16. ^ FitzGerald 2017, p. 131.
  17. ^ Zalc 2021, p. 29.
  18. ^ a b c Macklin 2021, p. 429.
  19. ^ Gibney 2017, pp. 365–366.
  20. ^ Gibney 2017, p. 366.
  21. ^ Weil & Handler 2018, p. 297.
  22. ^ Weil & Handler 2018, pp. 296, 308.
  23. ^ Weil & Handler 2018, pp. 297–298.
  24. ^ a b c d e Macklin 2021, p. 430.
  25. ^ Macklin 2021, pp. 431–432.
  26. ^ a b c Macklin 2021, p. 434.
  27. ^ Bolhuis & van Wijk 2020, p. 351.
  28. ^ Bolhuis & van Wijk 2020, p. 352.
  29. ^ Zedner 2016, p. 230.
  30. ^ Bolhuis & van Wijk 2020, pp. 354–356.
  31. ^ Bolhuis & van Wijk 2020, p. 358.
  32. ^ a b McGarry 2010, p. 43.
  33. ^ Belton 2017, pp. 28–29.
  34. ^ Paulussen 2021, p. 608.
  35. ^ Tripkovic 2021, p. 1044.
  36. ^ a b Gibney 2017, p. 378.
  37. ^ Said 2021, pp. 1814–1815.
  38. ^ Said 2021, pp. 1815–1816.
  39. ^ Belton 2017, pp. 34, 36–38.
  40. ^ Macklin 2014, pp. 9, 53–54.
  41. ^ Weil & Handler 2018, p. 305.
  42. ^ Macklin 2021, p. 438.
  43. ^ Macklin 2021, pp. 438–439.
  44. ^ Gibney 2017, p. 360.
  45. ^ a b Farmaner, Mark (2 November 2018). "Myanmar 2020 – Rohingya Citizenship: Now or Never?". London School of Economics. Retrieved 7 February 2022.
  46. ^ Iordachi 2019, p. 266.
  47. ^ Siegelberg 2019, p. 33.
  48. ^ Zahra 2017, p. 716.
  49. ^ FitzGerald 2017, pp. 141–142.
  50. ^ Liebisch-Gümüş 2020, pp. 230, 241.
  51. ^ Biner 2011, p. 371.
  52. ^ Sharma 2020, p. 100.
  53. ^ Mays 2020, pp. 187–188.
  54. ^ Zalc 2021, pp. 226–227.
  55. ^ Frankl 2014, p. 551.
  56. ^ Zahra 2017, pp. 722, 724–725.
  57. ^ McGarry 1998, pp. 622, 630.
  58. OCLC 965470087
    .
  59. OCLC 962141092.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link
    )
  60. OCLC 908047319.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link
    )
  61. OCLC 228654847
    .
  62. ^ Siegelberg 2019, p. 139.
  63. ^ Dean 2002, pp. 233–234.
  64. ^ Siegelberg 2019, pp. 140–141.
  65. ^ Sorkin 2019, p. 294.
  66. ^ a b c FitzGerald 2017, p. 142.
  67. ^ Zalc 2021, pp. 226–227, 237.
  68. ^ Zalc 2021, pp. 16, 302.
  69. ^ Brubaker 1998, p. 215.
  70. ^ Sorkin 2019, p. 310.
  71. ^ Akram 2021, p. 209.
  72. ^ FitzGerald 2017, p. 143.
  73. ^ McGarry 1998, pp. 622–623.
  74. ^ Belton 2017, pp. 30, 32.
  75. ^ Rangelov 2014, p. 27.
  76. ^ FitzGerald 2017, pp. 143–144.
  77. ^ Raj, Vatsal (2020-08-10). "The National Register of Citizens and India's commitment deficit to international law". LSE Blogs. Retrieved 2022-02-09.
  78. ^ Shahid, Rudabeh; Patel, Champa (19 March 2020). "Understanding India's citizenship controversy". Atlantic Council. Retrieved 9 February 2022.
  79. ^ Kraut 2020, p. ?.
  80. ^ a b c Gibney 2017, p. 363.
  81. ^ "Will Fight Deportation". The New York Times. December 1, 1919. Retrieved May 4, 2022.
  82. ^ "Soviet Ark Lands its Reds in Finland". The New York Times. January 18, 1920. Retrieved May 4, 2022.
  83. ^ Kraut 2020, p. 6.
  84. ^ Kraut 2020, pp. 6–7.
  85. ^ Paulussen 2021, pp. 606–607.
  86. ^ Bolhuis & van Wijk 2020, p. 339.
  87. ^ Bolhuis & van Wijk 2020, p. 349.
  88. ^ a b Bolhuis & van Wijk 2020, p. 340.
  89. ^ Paulussen 2021, p. 612.
  90. ^ Paulussen, Christophe; van Waas, Laura. "Blog post: 'The counter-productiveness of deprivation of nationality as a national security measure'". T.M.C. Asser Instituut. Retrieved 7 February 2022.
  91. ^ Bolhuis & van Wijk 2020, p. 365.
  92. ^ Bolhuis & van Wijk 2020, p. 362.
  93. ^ Biddle, Sam BiddleMaryam SalehSam; SalehAugust 25, 2021, Maryam. "Little-Known Federal Software Can Trigger Revocation of Citizenship". The Intercept. Retrieved 21 September 2021.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  94. ^ "Cuccinelli Announces USCIS' FY 2019 Accomplishments and Efforts to Implement President Trump's Goals | USCIS". www.uscis.gov. 16 October 2019. Retrieved 21 September 2021.
  95. ^ a b Macklin 2014, p. 4.
  96. ^ Mantu 2015, p. 329.
  97. ^ Breitman 2005, p. 229.
  98. ^ "Secret Justice Department Report Details How the U.S. Helped Former Nazis". The New York Times.
  99. ^ Feigin 2006, p. 579.
  100. ^ Siegelberg 2019, p. 133.
  101. ^ Gibney 2017, p. 362.
  102. ^ a b Siegelberg 2019, p. 134.
  103. ^ Belton 2017, p. 36.
  104. ^ Pauls, Karen (September 25, 2022). "Can new legislation help 'Lost Canadians' be found again?". CBC News. Retrieved September 25, 2022.
  105. ^ Zedner 2016, p. 229.
  106. ^ Zedner 2016, pp. 229–230.
  107. ^ Troy 2019, p. 316.
  108. ^ a b Macklin 2021, p. 441.
  109. ^ a b c Paulussen 2021, p. 609.
  110. ^ Siegelberg 2019, p. 207.
  111. ^ Weil & Handler 2018, p. 295.
  112. ^ Bücken & de Groot 2018, p. 38.
  113. ^ a b Zedner 2016, p. 233.
  114. ^ Macklin 2021, pp. 432–433.
  115. ^ Zedner 2016, pp. 237–238.
  116. ^ Belton 2017, p. 43.
  117. ^ Bolhuis & van Wijk 2020, p. 363.
  118. ^ Bolhuis & van Wijk 2020, pp. 358–359, 363–364.
  119. ^ Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion (ISI) 2020.
  120. ^ Paulussen 2021, pp. 609–610.
  121. ^ a b Paulussen 2021, p. 611.

Sources

Books

Journal articles

Reports

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denaturalization&oldid=1213081940"