How common are laws targeting holders of specific citizenships to disadvantage them? I have been under the strong impression that, globally, laws that disadvantage people on the basis of their citizenship — barring immigration/visa laws — are extremely rare. In fact, I can't recall coming across any such law before I saw this question (which states that Norway has passed a law banning Russian citizens from flying drones). So, how are such laws common (except for immigration/visa laws)? Are there many examples? I am primarily interested in jurisdictions where citizenship (national origin) is a protected group for the purposes of illegal discrimination (admittedly, this doesn't preclude enacting laws that make such discrimination legal under certain circumstances, like exampled by the Norwegian law). Update based on comments and answers: This question primarily concerns laws that target holders of specific citizenships — as opposed to foreigners in general. Countries that advantage its own citizens and thus disadvantage everyone who is not (e.g. for land ownership) are pretty common and not interesting. Conversely, countries that target specific citizenships seem to be rare, and that's what the question is focused on.
Many countries have such restrictions on land ownership. Vietnam does not allow foreigners to own land, likewise Laos, Cambodia (part of their constitution), and Myanmar. Thailand has numerous restrictions on foreigners owning land. Tanzania allows limited land ownership by foreigners (investment purposes only), though technically only the President owns land. Kenya does not allow foreign land ownership, just long-term leasing. Mexico has a no-foreigners zone of 100 km at its borders and the sea, and there is a similar restriction in Honduras. Australia requires government permission for foreigners to buy land. Greece imposes bureaucratic barriers on EU-relative citizenship for land owning. Sri Lanka imposes a 100% title-transfer tax on foreigners. There are enough examples that it might be the usual situation, though less common in Western countries.
Yes Companies can own companies - that’s what subsidiaries are. On a practical level, you know this is true because you actually have an example. Companies House would not have allowed its registration (barring error) if it was illegal. Why can’t it open a bank account? Banks (or any other business) can choose who they will and won’t do business with. Unless it’s discrimination on the basis of a protected characteristic, it’s not illegal. Since juridical persons don’t have protected characteristics (apart from nationality) it’s virtually impossible to illegally discriminate against them.
It is well known and often repeated that China does not tolerate dual citizenship, except in the case of its citizens who have right of abode in Hong Kong or Macau. The Chinese Nationality Law is clear about this: Article 3. This is not true and you misunderstand what Article 3 says. Article 3 says (depending on your translation): The People's Republic of China does not recognize dual nationality for any Chinese national. The only way I think this can be interpreted is that, if a person were to statutorily have both Chinese nationality and foreign nationality under each country's respective laws, then the PRC would only recognize their Chinese nationality, and not recognize their foreign nationality. This article does NOT mean that nobody can have dual nationality under the law. In order to &quot;recognize&quot; or &quot;not recognize&quot; something, it presupposes that the thing exists. If nobody had dual nationality under the law, then this article would be meaningless, as there would be no point to &quot;not recognize&quot; something that nobody has anyway. This article only matters to someone who truthfully has dual nationality under PRC and foreign law. Given someone who truthfully has dual nationality under PRC and foreign law, since dual nationality is not recognized, which nationality is recognized and which is not? Since Article 3 says &quot;Chinese national&quot;, it implicitly recognizes the person's Chinese nationality, which means it's the foreign nationality that is not recognized. (This, by the way, is essentially identical to the US position -- the US only recognizes the US nationality of a dual national.) It is true that true dual nationality of the PRC and a foreign country is uncommon, but that is mainly due to Articles 9 (which says a Chinese national naturalizing abroad automatically loses Chinese nationality) and 8 (which says that a foreign national who naturalizes to get Chinese nationality shall not retain foreign nationality). It is not because of Article 3. By the way, when I say someone who has dual nationality of the PRC and a foreign country, it does not include a Chinese national who has naturalized abroad, who is subject to Article 9 but continues to use/obtain PRC passports and/or continue to exercise the rights of a Chinese citizen. De jure, this person no longer has Chinese nationality, even if the PRC government is not aware of it yet. When discovered, they will be treated as only a foreign national, and that is consistent with my explanation, since this person does not de jure have Chinese nationality. Any documents issued to them reflecting Chinese nationality after their foreign naturalization, were issued in error. Article 3 is irrelevant for such a person since there is no question of &quot;recognizing&quot; dual nationality for a person who does not legally have dual nationality. So who are the people who truthfully have both PRC and foreign nationality? There are several cases. First, as you noted, this is possible for many people in Hong Kong and Macau, due to explanations of the PRC nationality law for those territories. For example, in the one for Hong Kong, items 2-4 say that Chinese of Hong Kong are Chinese nationals despite holding foreign passports. They do not have foreign consular protection while in Hong Kong and the rest of China, (unless they choose to apply for change of nationality to foreign nationality, effectively renouncing Chinese nationality). It says their foreign passports can be used for traveling to &quot;other countries and territories&quot; (implying that they cannot be used to enter Hong Kong or the rest of China). This supports my explanation of Article 3 above, that the PRC only recognizes the Chinese nationality of a dual national, and does not recognize their foreign nationality. Another case is a child born in China to one Chinese citizen parent and one foreign national parent who meets the conditions to automatically pass on foreign nationality to the child at birth according to that foreign country's law. According to Article 4, a child born in China to at least one Chinese citizen parent is automatically a Chinese citizen, without regards to whether the child also has foreign nationality at birth, or anything else. Any person born in China whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality. And finally, we get to the case you mentioned, for children born abroad. Article 5 deals with children born abroad, and it says that a child born abroad to at least one Chinese citizen parent automatically has Chinese nationality, except when at least one parent is a Chinese citizen who has settled abroad, AND the child has foreign nationality at birth, in which case the child will not have Chinese nationality. Any person born abroad whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality. But a person whose parents are both Chinese nationals and have both settled abroad, or one of whose parents is a Chinese national and has settled abroad, and who has acquired foreign nationality at birth shall not have Chinese nationality. Because they wrote it with an &quot;and&quot;, it means that children who had foreign nationality at birth but where neither parent was a Chinese citizen who has settled abroad, will have Chinese nationality at birth. If they had wanted to make it so that children born abroad could not have both Chinese nationality and foreign nationality at birth, they could have written it with an &quot;or&quot;, but they didn't. Unlike some other countries, the PRC nationality law does not require that children born abroad be registered at a PRC consulate with a declaration that the child does not have a foreign passport in order to get Chinese citizenship. Nor does the PRC nationality law provide that dual national children lose their Chinese nationality if they don't renounce foreign nationality at a certain age. Since you specifically ask about children born in the US, they will all have foreign nationality (US citizenship) at birth (ignoring cases of children born to diplomats). So it only depends on the other condition (whether at least one parent was a Chinese citizen who has settled abroad). The PRC government interprets &quot;settled abroad&quot; as having foreign permanent residency (e.g. US green card). So assuming the only relevant foreign permanent residency is the US green card, here is a table summarizing whether a child born in the US has Chinese nationality at birth, based on the status of the parents: Chinese citizen without green card Chinese citizen with green card non-Chinese citizen Chinese citizen without green card Yes No Yes Chinese citizen with green card No No No non-Chinese citizen Yes No No The current procedure at PRC consulates (both in US and in other countries) is that they issue PRC Travel Documents (旅行证) instead of PRC passports to children born abroad, who have both Chinese nationality (as determined by Article 5) and foreign nationality at birth, who wish to travel to China. These Travel Documents are passport-like booklets, are valid for 2 years (can be re-applied for again after expiration), and contain a Chinese and an English info page, both of which say, among other things, The bearer of this Travel Document is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. [...] Having a US passport does not preclude the issuance of the Travel Document. In fact, the consulate expects the child in this case to have a US passport and requests the US passport information as well as the physical US passport during the application process, if the child already has one. The consulate clearly has no problem recognizing the child as a Chinese citizen even if they know that the child has US citizenship and a US passport. This Travel Document can be used to enter and exit China. When exiting China, the child would present both the PRC Travel Document and the US passport at PRC exit controls. The border control officer will recognize, upon seeing the Travel Document, that this is the routine procedure for a dual national child, and it will not lead to problems like when both PRC and US passports are presented (even though both the PRC passport and PRC Travel Document say inside them that the bearer is a citizen of the PRC). As you can see, having a US passport is not incompatible with the PRC's recognition of the child's Chinese nationality. If the PRC Travel Document is lost or expires while in China, the child can get a PRC Entry/Exit Permit (通行证), which again can be used with the US passport when exiting China with no problems. When back abroad, the child can again apply for a PRC Travel Document at a PRC consulate the next time they need to travel to China. Although it is possible for the child to be added to hukou while in China, the child should not apply for a PRC passport, as it seems this will cause problems when exiting China, as you mentioned. The child should stick to Chinese Travel Documents and Entry/Exit Permits. I have heard rumors that the consulate might no longer issue PRC Travel Documents to such a dual national child after turning 18 (perhaps forcing the child to renounce either PRC or foreign nationality), but I haven't seen any official source on this, and the PRC nationality itself does not mention any need to do anything at any particular age. As for renouncing US citizenship, US law requires that loss of US citizenship can only occur when the person intends to relinquish US citizenship, and young children are considered to lack sufficient maturity and understanding of the meaning of renunciation of citizenship, and be too much under the influence of parents, to have the necessary voluntary intent. The Foreign Affairs Manual presumes that an age of at least 16 is generally necessary to renounce US citizenship. See 7 FAM 1292(i)(2): Voluntariness and intent: Minors who seek to renounce citizenship often do so at the behest of or under pressure from one or more parent. If such pressure is so overwhelming as to negate the free will of the minor, it cannot be said that the statutory act of expatriation was committed voluntarily. The younger the minor is at the time of renunciation, the more influence the parent is assumed to have. Even in the absence of any evidence of parental inducements or pressure, you and CA must make a judgment whether the individual minor manifested the requisite maturity to appreciate the irrevocable nature of expatriation. Absent that maturity, it cannot be said that the individual acted voluntarily. Moreover, it must be determined if the minor lacked intent, because he or she did fully understand what he or she was doing. Children under 16 are presumed not to have the requisite maturity and knowing intent;
The basic legal principles are as follows. First, a government may pass a law criminalizing an act, for example this Ugandan law which penalizes homosexual acts, their attempt, and aiding and abetting same. Second, a government has the subpoena power to compel a party to provide evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution, unless there is some specific restriction enacted in the country – I find no applicable restrictions in Uganda. In principle, the government could subpoena records of an internet service, in order to find violations of the law. Enforcement of the subpoena is relatively simple within the country, but enforcement against a website in Norway, for example, would be virtually impossible, in that Ugandan courts do not have authority in Norway and Norwegian courts will not recognize such an order. Uganda is not a party to the Hague Service Convention, so the Norwegian courts will simply not consider the subpoena.
Anti-discrimination laws only apply to people, see here – &quot;No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program to which this part applies&quot;. Genetic information anti-discrimination laws are limited to employment and insurance, see here. In addition, I'm betting that your dog cannot meet the university admission standards (lack of a transcript is fatal to the plan).
Any country is free to decide what actions are considered to be crimes, and what crimes are prosecuted depending on whether you perform the action in the country, outside the country, and depending on whether you are a citizen, a resident, both, or neither. They can also decide what are accepted defences in court and which are not. Any other country is free to decide under which circumstances they will ever extradite someone to that first country. Now you have to check the laws of the individual countries.
The law applies equally to everyone The fact that the person misunderstood the law is irrelevant irrespective of the reason for it. That said, in both cases the person would have access to a lawyer and consular assistance who could explain the law to them.
Constitutionally, a person is only required to be granted U.S. citizenship if they are born in the United States. Any other form of citizenship is as provided by statute. So, 8 U.S.C. § 1409 makes some people citizens who would not otherwise be citizens in its absence. In that sense, it grants citizenship. Meanwhile, 8 U.S.C. § 1409(g) supports the proposition, which is a legal fiction in some cases, that someone is a &quot;natural born citizen&quot; of the United States, and hence eligible to run for President someday, and is retroactively considered to have been a citizen in the meantime for myriad other purposes, despite the fact that in the case of an unmarried non-citizen mother and a citizen father, this right is not vested and could never come into being if the required actions aren't taken after the fact. Incidentally, this statute has been upheld against constitutional challenges. Miller v. Albright, 520 U.S. 420 (1997). So, while you would like to clearly distinguish between someone having citizenship granted and having citizenship revoked, Congress, in its wisdom, has not been so accommodating and has declined to clearly distinguish between the two interpretations. This statute is a bit like the question of Schrödinger's cat, who is indeterminately alive and dead at the same time until there is a measurement of its state, in quantum physics. A person with an unmarried non-citizen mother and a citizen father is both a U.S. citizen from birth and always has been, and has never been a citizen of the U.S., until the situation is resolved with an actual determination of the question in accordance with the requirements of the statute.