Every country has it's own rules on this. I have numerous friends who hold citizenship in three or four countries. The US allows citizens to gain citizenship in other countries without renouncing US citizenship. Prior to 1998 Mexico did not allow its citizens to gain another citizenship, but now it does. Canada obviously allows for multiple citizenships. Spain also allows for multiple citizenships, I know several people who are Spanish, Mexican and US citizens. In general, I think most countries don't limit their citizens' right to gain citizenship in other countries. Maybe some confusion comes from the common expression "dual citizenship" which sounds like it would mean two, but generally means more than one.
About a month before we left Playa, we were treated to a new next door neighbor (really good guy), and much to my surprise he had triple nationality. His father was Columbian, mother Israeli, and he was born in Quebec. He was Canadian by virtue of being born there and Columbian by way of his father. He lived a very short time in Canada before he moved to the US and grew up there. He eventually became a US citizen. When he turned 18, he decided to go to Israel and live with his mother and wanted to have Israeli citizenship. However, he had to spend his mandatory years in the Israeli army first and then, he had to renounce one of his 3 existing citizenships before he could become Israeli. So now he is Israeli-Canadian-Columbian -- really cool stuff! It made me wonder though, if there is a limit on 3 citizenships or if that was just some Israel-specific regulations... Edit: Lots of other posts clarifying my question in the 20 minutes I walked away before submitting...
My brother-in-law has dual US-Mexican citizenship and reports the exact same thing. He has traveled to dozens of countries I think more than 50 actually, he never stops traveling) and regularly gets better treatment when he travels under his Mexican passport.
This is the key. The U.S., for example, requires you to renounce foreign allegiances when you are sworn in as an American citizen, but other countries don't have to recognize that renunciation; thus, you can end up with the one you already had, plus a new, U.S. one. I've looked at getting an Irish passport, not doable as it turns out, in my case: I've looked at getting my wife a German passport, doable, just. It's nice to have multiple citizenships when you can swing it. With Germany, she'd have had to offer a justification to the German authorities for retaining her American citizenship, or be willing to give it up; so, just as RG pointed out, each country has its own rules governing these matters.... _______________________ I've never thought seriously about giving up my U.S. citizenship, but things have annoyed me. I was annoyed way back, before 911, when the U.S. started wanting details about their citizens who were flying home: there are legitimate law enforcement reasons for seeking this information, but I was still annoyed, and I resisted it as long as possible. Mostly I was annoyed by the creeping militarism that I felt had taken over the thinking of most Americans since Eisenhower's warning that it could happen. The invasion of Iraq was distressing to me, as it was to so many around the world; and, it was especially distressing that Americans accepted this action by their government as a perfectly natural response- to what, was never clear, though my 90 year old mother said, "It's because they attacked us." She's not unintelligent, but the message was so cleverly presented, mainly by Dick Cheney, that it was easy to get confused about who had attacked whom.
Are you certain of this? I have dozens of friends and family members who have become naturalized U.S. citizens and not one has ever mentioned this. I completely agree. The U.S. is the bully of the world, it is infrequent for me to be proud of my country's foreign policies. And the U.S. is becoming more of a police state too. All of this crap with the new illegal immigration law in Arizona is making me sick.
Naturalization oath Who ever pays any attention to what they swear to, anyway.... Here is the official text of the oath that every new citizen of the U.S. must make: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
No argument on the police state comment.. the shear number of incarcerated people in the US is all the evidence anyone should ever need of that... but in respect to the Arizona law... and I'd expect you know this better than most.. it's nothing that Mexico doesn't already have on the books itself, so its quite hypocritical for Mexico to denounce the measure as it has. (just imagine the uproar if the US setup immigration checkpoints on the roads as Mexico currently does.) Although I can understand how it can be so upsetting after so many years of simply looking the other way on such matters. They are now in the process of rewording it to avoid the racist label, and I expect in the end it won't amount to any real change in policy by Arizona authorities.. (who should have been checking anyone they arrest for immigration violations by federal law anyway) the only real results will be the ratcheting up of anger over illegal immigrants as is already happening. If and when Obama does pass his amnesty ("immigration reform").. I'd hope that Mexico could reciprocate and give Americans an easier time.. but I'm not holding my breath on that.
U.S. Prisons/U.S. drug laws Life, I know you've often alluded to the fact that the U.S. has the largest number of people behind bars of any country in the world, over a million I believe is the number, and the majority of them are there for drug related offenses. I don't recall your elaborating your thoughts on this, but I'll share a few- I think it calls into question the wisdom of a system which continues to treat those who use drugs, and those who supply the market, as criminals, rather than destroying the market by shifting the management of this issue into a "public health" modality. Given that- in addition to imprisoning such a large number of people being very costly- having the existing approach enables a system in which billions of U.S. dollars leave our shores, only to empower and enrich the drug cartels of other countries, such as Mexico, which then damage the fabric of those societies by undermining the proper functioning of their governments through their financial influence, and through the armaments they are able, then, to purchase and use against whomever they choose. The current approach to the issue was adopted by the U.S. in the 1920-30s, so far as I know: before then, it was possible to try various drugs without criminal penalty, and many chose to do so. Sigmund Freud wrote about his use of cocaine, for example: Jack London used opiates. One of my great aunts told tales of the widespread use of marijuana when she was a young girl in college, before this was criminalized and it was alcohol that was forbidden. It wasn't until forty years ago, with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act and the creation of the DEA, that modern enforcement of prohibitions against users and suppliers really took off. People like to get high, to feel good, and many will take the risk of doing so, even if the substances they choose are forbidden. I think we can find a better way to respond to this human impulse.
