Talk:Stateless person

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Former USSR 2 Palestinians? 3 Famous stateless individuals 4 Voluntarily stateless 5 Palestine and Palestinians again 6 Modern statelessness? 7 Stateless Tamils 8 Canadian citizenship law and statelessness

[edit] Former USSR

One class of stateless persons definitely bearing mention: former USSR citizens (mostly ethnic Russians) who were born in the Baltic republics between 1940 and 1991 but are not regarded as natural born citizens by the now independent states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. I couldn't figure out how to fit this into the article as written, but I will eventually. In the mean time, go for it!. Ellsworth 00:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A thing worth mentioning is that there are also former USSR citizens (mostly ethnic Russians) who were born in Russia between 1940 and 1991 but are not regarded as natural born citizens by the now independent state of Russia as well!

Are those people who are regarded not to be of russian "nationality" (with the special meaning mentioned in the article)?

(*) The non citizens in Baltic countries can get citizenship in the baltic countries, if they can a) speak the language of the respective country b) know important historic terms and culture. For the ethnic russians born in these countries the largest problem is the language, they have lived in the country for years and spoken only russian, and now they have to learn a new language. The youngsters don't often have any big problem with the languages but the older people have. And becuase they are not citizens they have no voting right. //Martin

[edit] Palestinians?

All the Arabs in the Palestinian territories are stateless, are they not? —Ashley Y 02:36, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

This is a political comment, so it deserves a poltical answer. Please don't include any of this in the article. As a matter of fact, all Palestinians are technically residents of Israel, although they don't have Israeli citizenship (at least those that havn't applied... there are Palistinians who are arab, practice their moslim faith, and are Israeli citizens as well). In addition, there is the "Palestinian Authority" that does legally exist, and they do issue passports that are recognized throughout the Middle-east and even the USA. This wasn't the case a couple of decades ago, but it is now. The only real sticking point is trying to decide just what the Palestinian territory ought to be (a reason for the big wall under construction.... and the Palestinians do have a right to complain about some of the decisions about where the wall has gone) and when full independence ought to be. For a displace group of "stateless people", you might want to instead look at Kurds, Tibetans, or even several Native American tribes in North America. --Robert Horning 03:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This is a political question, but it doesn't deserve such an immediately dismissive answer. Since this article is about statelessness as a legal category, the legal position of Palestinians ought to be clarified, to wit:

1. You say "all Palestinians are technically residents of Israel". Leaving aside the contentious question of what constitutes Israel, there's a difference between "resident" and "citizen", and it's the latter category that's important when discussing statelessness. This is a non-rhetorical question: can an Arab resident of Gaza or Nablus or some other outside-the-Green-Line community apply for and receive Israeli citizenship? Could they between 1967 and 1993? I don't know the answer to the second question, but as to the first, I'm guessing it's no: I remember reading recently that Israel was making it harder for Palestinians married to Israeli Arabs to get Israeli citizenship, so it seems obvious to me that someone with no connection to an Israeli citizen would be denied in a bid to become one.

2. The fact that PNA passports are accepted for diplomatic purposes and for international travel, despite the fact that the PNA is not a state, is itself intriguing and worthy of discussion, though not in depth in this article. If the PNA is not a state (and it's not), what status does PNA "citizenship" (if such a thing exists) confer on an individual? Do those states that recognize a "State of Palestine" (most of which recognitions were extended before the PNA was created) view the PNA as the legitimate government of said state and its passports as passports of Palestine? What about the more numerous countries that do not recognize the current existance of a Palestinian state? How does their treatment of individuals who hold PNA passports and citizenship dovetail with their diplomatic law and theory?

3. The category "Palestinian" covers not just those living in the West Bank and Gaza, but refugees from the 1949 war and their descendents living in Arab countries. I know that in many of these countries (all of them except Jordan, I think), these refugees don't have citizen rights or even rights of abode outside of designated refugee camps. Can these individuals acquire PNA citizenship? Surely the can't acquire Israeli citizenship (or else what's all the "right to return" fuss about in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?). Here surely is a large-ish group who might be designated as stateless.

Anyway, I know it's impossible, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian debate without inflaming passions. I would really like to find out more about how large the group of stateless Palestinians is, what the status of residents (citizens?) of PNA-administered areas is in the legal theories of various other states, and how many Palestinians could now or could previously acquire some form of citizenship but choose not to. Hopefully it won't degenerate into a shouting match. --Jfruh 23:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What I would find interesting would be to see how many Palestinians are living outside of Israeli controlled areas, such as Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and Syria. This is not an insignificant number, and presumably would be many of the same individuals that need formal citizenship rights from somewhere in order to remain in the countries where they are living. Not posessing a passport would make international travel very difficult, even between two countries with good diplomatic relations (like between England and the USA). Being stateless would make such travel almost impossible. --Robert Horning 04:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Effectively you're right, Palestinians under occupation are stateless. Not because they cannot get travel documents, but because the Israelis frequently prevent them from returning to their homes in eg the West Bank (and particularily East Jerusalem). This is not a typical example of the situation, however - it only affects students, businessmen or those who dare travel. PalestineRemembered 20:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

===>Look at Palestinian people That information is on the page. -Justin (koavf), talk 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous stateless individuals

Maybe we should include a list of famous stateless individuals? Such persons are such to attract much curiosity. Though I can't think of anyone except that guy who stayed in an airport for a long time... made into a movie, but I forgot the name. -Hmib 01:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The real-life refugee is Merhan Karimi Nasseri, and the movie is The Terminal. —Caesura^(t) 17:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Albert Einstein#Youth_and_college was stateless from 1896 to 1901 after renouncing his Württemberg (now part of Germany) citizenship.

I just created Category:Stateless people and Category:Formerly stateless people to put articles in. (And technically Merhan Karimi Nasseri isn't stateless (he's still an Iranian national, as far as I know) but he's a refugee because he can't go back there. I added him to Category:Refugees instead.) --Closeapple 09:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voluntarily stateless

From this article it seems statelessness is a bad situation, and countries sometimes try to avoid this situation for foreigners or closer people. But also states, as far as I have seen, don't allow nationals to repudiate their nationality if they are not getting a new one.

¿Anyone know of a state that permits resignation of nationality even if becoming stateless? It is a very interesting case to show the limits of freedom, and the needs of states and laws to have people adscribed to them or some other law they can handle you with. I will put a little phrase reflecting this imposibility soon.

A 1960s book called Guide to the Draft, aimed at explaining the workings of the United States Selective Service to American men of draft age, advised that a man who fled the country to avoid the draft would probably not be permitted to return. However, if he were to go abroad and renounce his citizenship prior to committing any violation of the Selective Service Act, he might someday be able to return at least as a visitor, though this would not be guaranteed. The book did not really recommend this course of action, noting that no country would be obliged to admit such a person, and he might experience difficulty finding a place he would be allowed to reside. --Trovatore 19:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the U.S. allows its citizens to renounce citizenship even if they have no other. However this is not a general pattern, for example the United Kingdom has a specific prohibition on a British citizen making himself stateless by renouncing citizenship. JAJ 18:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Would be nice to get a fact check on both of these (US and UK). My references on voluntary renunciation for US citizens would be Guide to the Draft, in which it was a minor point perhaps not thoroughly researched, and the section on "Loss of Citizenship" in the US passport, which gives among the ways that citizenship may be lost formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer overseas. The passport does not, however, explicitly say that such renunciations will always be permitted, or effective if permitted. --Trovatore 19:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palestine and Palestinians again

Cut from article:

Some areas, such as Palestine, are under military occupation by a country which does not issue passports to its residents.

This implies that all of Palestine is under military occupation. But I thought "Palestine (region)" included both the Jewish and Arab areas of Western Palestine, i.e., the British Mandate west of the Jordan River; and that the Jewish areas turned into the sovereign state of Israel.

If this view is true (and I rely completely on other Wikipedia articles for this view), then not all of Palestine is "under military occupation". The part of Palestine which is Israel is (a) sovereign territory and (b) issues passports to both its Jewish and Arab citizens (see Israeli Arabs).

Or, by "Palestine" did the contributor mean "the Palestinian territories", i.e., West Bank and Gaza? It would be clearer - especially if we are trying to explain a general concept - to use unambiguous terms.

==>Are Palestinian Arabs of Gaza or West Bank are stateless? Do they have no passports? Are they thus unable to travel legally in foreign countries?

===>Palestine The author probably intended Palestinian territories, which remain under occupation. Otherwise, he's a Palestinian nationalist, implying that the State of Israel is/should be a part of a Palestinian state. There are Palestinian Arabs who have Israeli citizenship; most of them live in the internationally-understood borders of Israel. There are Palestinian passports, but many states will not accept them, or will only allow people short stays with them. Most employed Palestinian males work in Jordan, as I understand it. -Justin (koavf), talk 14:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

==> The author (myself) did mean the occupied Palestinian territories. Since these are in fact occupied territories and not a state, there is no passport-issuing authority, and thus people born in these territories are indeed stateless. Since they are not able to travel to foreign countries, nor in many cases are they able to live where they were born, the Palestinians are, in my view, the definitive case of statelessness in the contemporary world. I am thus returning them to the text. I am not including a claim that the Palestinians are arguably the largest permanently stateless population in the world today.

I consider it extremely important to mention the Palestinians in this text, and also find it surprising that they should be singled out for removal from such a long list of more questionable cases (e.g., the FARC-ruled areas of Colombia effectively no longer exist.}

Palestians (West Bank, Gaza, Jerusalem or Israel resident) live in various forms of near or total statelessness. eg Israel issues West Bankers travel documents that are acceptable to other countries, but Israel may (and increasingly does) refuse them re-entry, or allows them back for increasingle short periods eg. recent Scotsman newspaper (8 Sep 2006). People living in Gaza are pretty nearly completely imprisoned in a space where Israel has long smashed all forms of organisation or security [[1]], with both Israel and Egypt closing the crossings, the airport bombed and the coast blockaded. (Need me source that information?).

This report: Living death is just a very recent (19 Sept 06) account from an Israeli newspaper of what is happening to Jerusalem born and bred Palestinians. And has been going on for a long time eg in 1997 (after 20 years of occupation, but with no intafada going on) Ethnic Cleansing in Jerusalem, Israeli Style - By former Congressman Paul Findley (R-IL)

Palestinians are almost certainly the worst affected stateless people in the world (though perhaps not the biggest group?) PalestineRemembered 13:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern statelessness?

What about people who have renounced citizenship? --NEMT 02:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Usually you can only renouce if you have another citizenship to go on to. Spartaz 22:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What does "usually" mean? I gave two (somewhat iffy) refs above for the propositions that US citizens can renounce their citizenship in front of a consular official abroad. Guide to the Draft appeared to say that you could become stateless in this way. --Trovatore 22:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a UN convention about avoiding statelessness and am American lawyer friend of mine who specialises in Immigration told me that US consular officers would probably refuse to accept the application in the first place. Also, avoiding the draft is how old exactly? Can it still be considered a reliable source for this kind of thing? Anyway, there is a whole world outside the US and if its only the US that allows you to become stateless than I think usually is a good definition of the facts.Spartaz 04:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

<unindent> see http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

I quote -

In the recent case of Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998), plaintiff was a United States citizen and resident of Puerto Rico, who executed an oath of renunciation before a consular officer at the U.S. Embassy in Santo Domingo. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Colon’s petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State to approve a Certificate of Loss of Nationality in the case because the plaintiff wanted to retain one of the primary benefits of U.S. citizenship while claiming he was not a U.S. citizen. The Court described the plaintiff as a person, "claiming to renounce all rights and privileges of United States citizenship, [while] Plaintiff wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely to travel freely throughout the world and when he wants to, return and reside in the United States." See also Jose Fufi Santori v. United States of America , 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 16299 (1994) for a similar case.

This clearly shows that whatever the law US consular officuals are veyr reluctant to accept a renounciation even if the law may allow it. Spartaz 04:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it also says on the same page:

Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government.

So it does appear that there's a reference for at least the possibility of voluntary acquisition of stateless status, at least for US citizens, of which there are quite a few, notwithstanding the existence of a world outside the US. --Trovatore 05:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are making. Usually means in most cases. That appears to be the point I was making here. Spartaz 05:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're comparing it only with the UK (or at least the Commonwealth). Do you know something about the practices of some third country? --Trovatore 05:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Spartaz 07:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This discussion manages to gloss over the really serious effects of becoming a stateless person, and becoming, for instance, subject to crime (up to and including murder) without any recourse. I'm not sure what situation Einstein got himself into, but he cannot possibly have been suffering the real consequences of this condition. PalestineRemembered 20:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Did I manage to become stupid overnight? Probably. Would you mind explaining that last bit to me again? Why does being stateless make you more subject to crime than a person with a citizenship? Right now, the only largish group of stateless people are those from Somalia and I have seen no evidence that they are more likely to be victims of crime than others? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spartaz (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there are a couple of problems with PalestineRemembered's comments. First of all, no one really has any recourse if he's murdered :-). In any case the thing is clearly very context-dependent. I don't think there's any Western country where it's legal to murder a person just because he's not a citizen. It might be true in some abstract sense that the state doesn't owe a duty to such a person to punish his murder, but that doesn't mean they won't. --Trovatore 21:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

C'mon guys, pull yourselves together. All this talk of "people voluntarily renouncing citizenship" (as Einstein may have done while living and working in Switzerland?) is ignoring the really serious problems caused to considerable numbers of people in this situation (as the world recognised in 1954, perhaps because of German-speaking non-Germans and other DPs from WWII?). Most of the people affected are from third world countries, and are still in the third world. Only a very lucky few are here and being treated relatively fairly. Even penniless refugees living in someone else's land under canvas are not as badly off as people with no homes or communities ever to return to.

PalestineRemembered 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I just checked and I appear to be pulled together.:) I think you are confusing displaced persons with stateless persons. Practially there may not be much difference in terms of access to travel documents but this is a function of poverty and circumstances rather then lacking a citizenship. Legally Somalis are stateless because they have no access to travel documents from their own government because no government exists. People in Azad Kasmir have Pakistani passports. I have certainly seen Indians from Kashmir though, no doubt, there are those who do not have access to travel documentation. Palestinians now have a recognised authority to issue them Travel documents. The reason they are living in such brutal conditions is because of their cicrcumstances and the behaviour of the IDF rather then their not being able to access a valid travel document. Why not add a line making the point and linking to an appropriate article that discusses the issues - but this is a economic and political problem not one caused by people being stateless. I do agree that the article is a little westerncentric. Spartaz 17:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stateless Tamils

Removed from article: Over 800,000 stateless Tamils may have gained citizenship of Sri Lanka in 2001 [2], having been deprived of it since independence in 1948. They were descended from Indian workers brought 200 years ago to pick tea.

This doesn't fit with the rest of the paragraph and if it is to go in we need to find a better to fit it in. Out of curiousity what is the provenence of this statement? I spent a good chunk of 1996 to 2001 interviewing Tamil asylum seekers and I can't ever recall one claiming to be stateless. --Spartaz 16:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I picked it up from the Washington Post article I referenced [3], where it says: "The stateless tea workers are descendants of Tamil laborers who were brought to the island, then known as Ceylon, in the 1700s by British planters who complained that Sinhalese wouldn't work as cheaply or as obediently. After Britain granted independence in 1948, the plantation workers were denied citizenship in both Sri Lanka and India".

Later it says they were granted citizenship in 2001 .... but I'll certainly bow to your better information!

PalestineRemembered 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I simply can't see how this could be true anyway. No-one was left stateless as Britain pulled out of the Empire. If you were not a citizen of the new independant state than you became a British Overseas Citizen. There are not loads of BOCs in Sri Lanka. I can't ever remember meeting a Tamil BOC. --Spartaz 17:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right. I'm offended by this article suggesting that statelessness is not really a great problem. Unfortunately, I don't really know enough to detail it properly. Could you do anything?

PalestineRemembered 19:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. Sorry. I can only really relate to the subject as an intellectual exercise. I'm not stateless and am never likely to be. Spartaz 19:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

PR, as Spartaz said, I think you're conflating statelessness in the strict sense with other things that tend to accompany it. There are a lot of stateless people who are suffering, but it's not clear they're suffering because they're stateless, and without evidence of that, giving this as an example of "the problem of statelessness" seems like pro-state propaganda. --Trovatore 19:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a stage at which something becomes a "Well Known Fact" ..... the world knows of the really serious problems created by this condition, that's why there was a 1954 convention raised to try and deal with it (not entirely successfully). I never thought I'd come across people playing it down!

PalestineRemembered 12:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian citizenship law and statelessness

Please note that the Canadian law alluded to in the text about having to establish Canadian residency by age 28 — section 8 of the current Citizenship Act — deals specifically with people who were born outside Canada to a Canadian parent who was, in turn, also born outside Canada to a Canadian parent — in other words, second-generation citizens by descent (though please note that the term "citizen by descent" is not actually used in Canadian citizenship law). The law in question has nothing in particular to do with dual citizenship (except insofar as the affected individuals are probably likely to have dual citizenship). Richwales 07:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)