Failing to renounce Indian citizenship Indians are required to renounce their Indian citizenship after obtaining another citizenship. What happens if someone doesn't do so? I mean if my Indian passport has anyhow expired, and I never ever plan to travel to India again, or use my Indian citizenship in any way, does it make any sense to pay 185 euros for this procedure? Can I just simply claim on official forms that I'm not an Indian citizen after my Indian passport expired, even if I don't officially renounce it?
The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 §8 requires it, so from a legal perspective, you must do it. That law does not specify the consequences, and there isn't a clear limit on the possible punishment. The government does invite you to inquire about your penalty, saying The Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, does not allow dual citizenship. Holding Indian passport/acquiring Indian passport/travelling on Indian passport after acquisition of foreign citizenship constitutes an offence under the Indian Passport Act, 1967, and attracts penalties. The Government of India has prescribed imposition of penalty on a graded scale, depending on number of trips made on Indian passport after acquiring foreign nationality, for the violation of Passport Rules and retention of Indian Passport for more than 3 years after acquiring of foreign nationality. §12 of the Passport Act spells out the penalties (up to 5 years in prison and ₹50,000. If you can avoid being in illegal possession of an Indian passport, you might avoid prosecution under the act (though they probably cannot get you extradited to enforce the penalty). They certainly have the power to revoke your passport, but no provision of the law obligates you to formally apply for a passport revocation when you believe that your passport should be revoked. Unless you officially renounce your citizenship, do the paperwork, and officially surrender your passport, the government can reasonably suspect that you are illegally in possession of an illegal passport, so they are empowered to investigate, including searching and seizing. However, if you have zero interest in India, that may not matter.
Note that, criminals are not allowed to apply for a German citizenship, so I don't know whether the German government would consider being a deserter as a being criminal. First of all, they would deny a criminal German citizenry, but that goes only for crimes, that are also illegal in Germany (Sec. 12a § 2 Nationality Act, § 12a Abs. 2 StAG). Were you - for instance - convicted for muder you couldn't become a German citizen. Desertion in that sense however is not a criminal offence in Germany, so you're good. Regarding double citizenship, Sec. 12 § 1 2nd sentence no. 2 Nationality Act (§ 12 Abs. 1 S. 2 Nr. 2 StAG) allows you to keep your original citizenship, if the country of origin &quot;regularly refuses to grant release from citizenship&quot;, which should be the case here. Therefore, you could become a German citizen according to Sec. 10 Nationality Act (§ 10 StAG).
Isn’t this discrimination since nationals do not have to apply? Yes it is discrimination. But that does not make it illegal. In fact discrimination is in general legal unless it is based on some characteristic which is specifically forbidden as a basis for discrimination (e.g. race). And in general, all of the countries in the world allow and enforce discrimination based on nationality; for example non-nationals will not be able to run for Head of State (and additional restrictions may apply). The EU members allowing similar rights to the citizens of other EU countries is the exception, not the rule, and once the UK stops being bound by EU treaties it can impose its own legal system on non-nationals. And while EU treaties give lots of rights to EU member-countries citizens, they still allow for discrimination based on nationality (for example you cannot run for Prime Minister or MP of Spain as a foreign EU resident). Isn’t the UK Government breaking the law? This could go against EU treaties, but the point is that the UK will no longer need to comply with them. is the UK Government responsible for the harm and distress caused to the individual health and mental wellbeing? No, the UK Government is not responsible if you do not like its laws to the point that it affects your health. Is there any ground for challenging this scheme legality in court? Unlikely. In any case it will not be because you are frightened by it, any challenge would be in the grounds that the government actions act against some other UK law. For example, if the decision to make such a list was made by the Executive but it contradicts some law approved by the Parliament. If this list does not contradict any law, then there are no grounds for challenging it. Would there a breach of my human rights if I was not to apply for settle status and then subsequentially got deported (taken away from my children, home, business, etc.)? How about if I was refused, re-entry or access to public services (NHS for example)? If you do not apply you will not have any evidence that you were settled, and the government could legitimately believe that you are irregularly in the country and try to expel you; you probably would have an opportunity to prove that you were settled even if you were not in the list but that could be way slower, more expensive, riskier and stressful than just registering now. Get this clear: that settled person list is to help you to show that you were a UK resident before Brexit and to give you the protections that are being negotiated between the UK and the EU for expatriates. Probably you could choose not to enlist, but it would work against you.
Legally you face no problem. The section 66A of the Indian IT Act, which used to be previously misused for penalizing anyone who dared insult a politician, has been struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India. But the police could still detain you for 48 hours (legally) without giving any grounds; they are required to do that, but the police are seldom held accountable. The supporters of the said politician can vandalize your home and office without fear of legal action. I am not a lawyer. Whatever is posted above is my opinion and data that I believe to be true to the best of my knowledge and resources available to me. Please contact a lawyer for professional advice.
Yes. A multi-nation citizen who has US citizenship has equal US citizenship with every other citizen; therefore the answer to this binary question is "Yes". The citizenship(s) of anyone who does not have US citizenship is irrelevant to this question; thus, the answer to this binary question is "No". Yes. The main point here is to determine if you have the relevant documents and permissions to be legally present in the US. If you are a US citizen, a) this makes the process easier for you and b) avoids any possible issues if evidence is found of citizenship from another country, which will make immigration think that A) you are not a US citizen and b) you lied to them. Most people have only a single citizenship. That is the default mindset of immigration. There's no downside for you to inform them; there may be additional difficulties, delays, and scrutiny if you do not. If you are not a US citizen, most of the same applies. Additionally, lying (even by omission) can be grounds to have your legal status revoked. In summary, if you have the legal right to be in the US (e.g. US citizen, legal resident) being fully honest cannot hurt you, and can make the process smoother. If you have legal permission to be in the US, being fully honest will help prevent that permission from being revoked.
This FAQ from the US embassy in Korea explains all of the concerns that a Korean-American might have. If you have a Korean lational parent, you are automatically Korean. Before March 31 of the year you turn 18, you must renounce your Korean citizenship, lest you be then subject to the military service law. If you were a Korean citizen and then gained another citizenship, you automatically lose your Korean citizenship, and if you did not complete your military obligation and did not obtain an overseas travel permit, you may be punished if you ever return to Korea. The travel permit lets you postpone military service until age 37, so if you are living overseas, by January 15 of the year you turn 25 you must apply for a travel permit. The laws are set up so that you must enlist by age 28, but must have obtained a travel permit by age 25. That means if you are abiding by the law, there is no risk of sudden conscription if you're there for a short period (e.g. as a tourist). The risk seems to come from not obtaining a travel permit.
Citizens likely have an absolute right to enter the US. This hasn't been addressed directly by the Supreme Court, but here are some cases that come close. The Fifth Circuit, in William Worthy, Jr. v. US, 328 F.2d 386 (5th Cir. 1964): We think it is inherent in the concept of citizenship that the citizen, when absent from the country to which he owes allegiance, has a right to return, again to set foot on its soil. The Supreme Court, in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS 533 U.S. 53 (2001) said that conferring citizenship on a person would give "the absolute right to enter [the US]". This wasn't necessary for the holding in this case, which was about whether the person was a citizen, so this could be considered dicta. Fikre v. FBI, 23 F. Supp. 3d 1268 (D. Or. 2014). (not an appellate case) said: U.S. citizen’s right to reenter the United States entails more than simply the right to step over the border after having arrived there. At some point, governmental actions taken to prevent or impede a citizen from reaching the [border] infringe upon the citizen’s right to reenter the United States. Even if we assume that citizens do not have an absolute right to re-entry, the Equal Protection Clause likely bars a religion-based criteria for citizen re-entry. Citizens are protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This prohibits the government discriminating based on a suspect classification (race, religion, national origin) unless such law passes strict scrutiny. Without making a prediction about whether such a hypothetical statute could pass strict scrutiny, I'll go as far as I can and strongly guess that the government could not prohibit citizen re-entry to the United States based solely on their declared religion.
A Probably. Exceptions include: A didn’t own the materials from which the flute was made; the flute belongs to the material’s owner. A made the flute under a contract of employment; the flute belongs to A’s employer. A has sold the flute before making it; the flute belongs to the buyer. This is not only the law in india but pretty much everywhere in the world. If you want to ask about redistributive justice or taxation/welfare; please post the question on our sister sites philosophy or politics.