Talk:Right of return

message: I find this article to be confusing in regards to the current requirements for Right of Return to the UK. Perhaps someone with knowledge in this area can edit the article. 99.239.253.13 (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom 

message: The following is posted:
Significantly, the UN maintains a separate and distinct definition of the word "refugees" for Palestinians who left Palestine (including present-day Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza) in 1948 and/or 1967. Palestinian refugees from Palestine are classed as both the individuals who left their homes and any descendants of those individuals. This stands in contrast to the UN definition of refugee as it applies to displaced persons connected with territories other than those of the State of Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza: in the latter case it refers only to those individuals who were forced to flee, not to their lineal descendants.[13]
---------
This is misleading and it does not reflect the complexity of the Palestine refugee situation or definitions and can be misleading as to the numbers who have RoR to the Internationally recognized Israeli territories. 
For the purposes of  the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is defined  http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm  This reflects the UNHCR Statute.
The UNHCR Statute and the 1951 Convention also state:
"D. This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance."
However, UNRWA's 'working definition' of Palestine Refugees is only in order to qualify for UNRWA support until a final settlement.  However, UNRWA support, by it's name and mandate, is "to carry out direct Relief and Works programmes for Palestine refugees".  Unlike the UNHCR, UNRWA does not facilitate RoR .
Unlike the UNHCR Statute, the 1951 Convention states http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/o_c_ref.htm  in D: 2nd Paragraph 
"When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention."
If Palestine Refugees are, arguable, 'ipso facto' entitled to the UNHCR benefits because the UNRWA mandate does not cover their right of return, they will also be, 'ipso facto', bound by it's definition, which does NOT include 'descendants of those individuals'. 
---------
There has been no response ....I am changing  the text  to reflect the complexity and true nature of the UN/UNHCR and UNRWA definitions and the ambiguity resulting from "7. Provided that the competence of the High Commissioner as defined in paragraph 6 above shall not extend to a person:(c) Who continues to receive from other organs or agencies of the United Nations protection or assistance;" http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c39e1.pdf
----------
Refugees from the former Palestine Mandate have an ambiguous position. UNRWA's 'working definition', is only to ascertain who qualifies for UNRWA support while final borders are in dispute. Although it includes lineal descendants, UNRWA's mandate only extends to carrying out "direct relief and works programmes" for Palestine refugees.  It neither defines refugees or facilitates RoR. http://www.un.org/unrwa/overview/index.html and http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/whois.html
The Statute of the UNHCR defines  a refugee in respect to RoR  http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c39e1.pdf
"6. A. (i) Any person who has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926 and of 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10 February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization. (ii) Any person who, as a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear or for reasons other than personal convenience, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear or for reasons other than personal convenience, is unwilling to return to it." 
It goes on to say: "7. Provided that the competence of the High Commissioner as defined in paragraph 6 above shall not extend to a person: (c) Who continues to receive from other organs or agencies of the United Nations protection or assistance; 
This is also reflected in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugee. However, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees also states: "When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention."
Because UNRWA's 'working definition' of Palestine Refugees is only in order to qualify for UNRWA support until a final settlement and, unlike the UNHCR, UNRWA does not facilitate RoR, it can be argued that their RoR falls 'ipso facto to the UNHCR, under which lineal descendants are not included.
-----
nofavour (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestine 

message: Right now the following is posted:
:The December 15, 1790 Law stated that : 'All persons born in a foreign country and descending in any degree of a French man or woman expatriated for religious reason are declared French nationals (naturels français) and will benefit to rights attached to that quality if they come back to France, establish their domicile there and take the civic oath.'.
:Article 4 of the June 26, 1889 Nationality Law stated that : 'Descendants of families proscribed by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes (in 1685) will continue to benefit from the benefit of the December 15, 1790 Law, but on the condition that a nominal decree should be issued for every petitioner. That decree will only produce its effects for the future. '.
It doesn't seem relevant to me per the definition: "belief that members of an ethnic or national group have a right to immigration and naturalization into the country that they, the country, or both consider to be that group's homeland, without prior personal citizenship in that country."  In particular, the matters being discussed long predate the current France.
I am therefore tentatively removing, unless someone can show that it is in some way relevant to the idea that ethnic French can claim citizenship in France.AnotherBDA 07:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  France 

message: I do not believe that the Philippines section added by an anonymous-IP poster belongs here.  It regards "Former natural-born Filipino citizens who have naturalized in another country, and subsequently lost their Filipino citizenship".  But the right of return is not about persons who held citizenship and subsequently lost it -- it is about "a belief that members of an ethnic or national group have a right to immigration and naturalization into the country that they, the country, or both consider to be that group's homeland".  I have edited the latter to clarify: now reads "a belief that members of an ethnic or national group have a right to immigration and naturalization into the country that they, the country, or both consider to be that group's homeland, without prior personal citizenship in that country."
I have therefore moved the Philippines into a discussion in the Background section re non-ROR laws that nonetheless resemble RORs.  The parallels are interesting and say somethin about the circumstances in which RORs make sense.  But it is not the same thing, I think. AnotherBDA 14:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philippines 

message: How about Mexicans whose ancestors where displaced by the expansion of the United States?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 19:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States / Mexico 

message: Does any major government on Earth claim that there are two nations of China?
There are two governments that have claims about being the sole legitimate government of a China, but neither says that there is another China out there somewhere outside their natural borders.
Hcobb (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Chinas? 

message: As described in the definintion here:
"The term Right of return reflects a belief that members of an ethnic or national group have a right to immigration and naturalization into the nation they consider their homeland. This belief is sometimes reflected in special consideration in a nation's immigration laws which facilitate or encourage the reunion of a diaspora or dispersed ethnic population.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 13 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." (emphasis added). There is disagreement as to what this actually means in practice as well as whether country refers to a state or a specific area of land. In addition, the change from State to country from the first sentence to the second clouds the issue."
The Law of Return has nothing to do with these conditions and they are misleading.  It makes sense to seperate these entities.
I don't believe that Law of Return and this article are the same. One is a law, one is a concept. Each has its own separate ontological life. --Defenestrate 18:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong heading 

message: Having browsed this page and the Law of Return one, I thought I would try an overhaul.  I am still new at this, so apologies if I am going too fast!  I kind of got going and was going to try and do it all on the Talk page, then realized both that it would be faster to just make the changes, and that things here can be easily reverted if my edits are improper.
Particularly noting that the Law of Return article is about the Israeli law, I have tried to make this one more neutral by incorporating all of the national contexts of which I was aware.  The countries are now listed in alphabetical order, and the debate about extending Israeli citizenship to ethnic Jews and ethnic Palestinians, respectively, are listed under "Israel".  I did not create a separate section called "Palestine" re who if anyone should be entitled to citizenship on an ethnic basis in the nascent Palestine, but I assume someone will do that if it is an issue as well.  (I would suspect that ethnic Palestinians have a right of return in that state, without prejudice to any rights they might have in other states.  But that's just a guess.) --AnotherBDA 07:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul 

message: I deleted the phrase "***In practice however, it is very rare for any non-Jew to be granted Israeli citizenship, and*** Israel's self-identification as a Jewish state, and its pro-Jewish immigration policy is seen as a sign that the country is a home for the Jewish people" for the following reasons:
a) what does "in practice" mean? Were is there any statistical evidence? This is a substandard statement for an encyclopedia.
b) on the other hand and quite the opposite, there are indeed tens of thousands (and I personally know a few dozens of them) of non-Jewish foreigners who became Israeli citizens without converting to Judaism, either 
- after they married an Israeli citizen (a crushing majority of whom are indeed Arab Muslim individuals from the Palestinian Authority, i.e. Palestinian people, marrying Israeli Arabs Muslims or any other denomination of Israeli citizens), under the legal provisions for the reunification of families. 
This has even be a highly controversial point and one of present-day hottest issues in the State of Israel, as in recent years the Israeli authorities have tried to limit this huge flow of naturalizations by issuing special decrees. 
Since those decrees openly discriminate between categories of people, which is strictly forbidden by all ethic, national and international rules and laws, they could not be turned into full texts of law, but were recognized as "legitimate" by the Supreme Court of Israel, considering that they serve the goal of preserving the nature of the State of Israel as a "***Jewish*** and democratic state", a highly controversial issue on it's own right;
- after they lived for a while in Israel, through naturalization. 
Among such people (naturalization through residence) we find for example the Catholic (Dominican) priest Marcel-Jacques Dubois (b. 1920, originally a French citizen, naturalized Israeli in 1973), who has been the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and holds many Israeli prizes, including the highest national one, the Israel Prize, and Jerusalem's Yakir Yerushalayim prize.
Therefore the aforementioned statement according to which "it is very rare for any non-Jew to be granted Israeli citizenship" is heavily prejudiced and objectively and scientifically worthless, and should even be considered as a form of slander going back to the oldest forms of rejection of Jews as a "closed society," which they historically have never been, quite the contrary.
---------
One part of the "Impact on Israel" section states:
"If a Jew born in America has the right to return to his or her homeland, then in theory, a Palestinian born in a refugee camp should have the right to return to his or her homeland. Sadly, this is not the case."
I believe those sentences are unnecessary because:
a) Both sentences seem to be restating what was written in an earlier paragraph under the heading "Palestinian":
"Palestinian refugees from Israel are classed as both the individuals who left Israel and any descendants of those individuals. This stands in contrast to the UN definition of refugee as it applies to displaced persons connected with territories other than those of the State of Israel: in the latter case it refers only to those individuals who were forced to flee, not to their lineal descendants.[citation needed]"
b) The word 'sadly' clearly reflects an opinion. It is unecessary and inappropriate.
-------
Thanks, Khendon. Do you also know anything about the issues surrounding either the Jewish or Arab "rights of return"?
* Who supports either of these "rights"?
* Who opposes these "rights", and why"
--Ed Poor
I just added an analysis of the right of return and I ask all participants to state their opinion on the talk page first. I moved the "israeli right of the return" to "further meanings" because it does not play a role in the negotiations, i.e. it's not part of the same political problem (even if some people use it as an argument to state the injustice and inequality of Israel's policy) Second: I don't think we should go further into discussion of this topic, that is opposing and supporting and arguments and so on. For the Arabs, it's a question of justice, for the Israelis it's an absolute no-no and a probable solution (if there ever will be one) will be, granting some refugees a right of return to the palestinian state and a pay of compensation from Israel. So far my analysis as a not really involved political scientist. --Elian
-------
: shift which would remove its identity as a Jewish state.
The introduction of 8 million Palestinians (or Americans or Ugandans, for that matter), is going to create a catastrophe, for the very simple reason that the region's food and water supply is dwindling even now, at about 9 million people; at 17 million a lot of people would have to die. --Uri
:The population issue is at least partially separable from the issue of Israel's ethnic and national identity, is it not? Granting the Palestinian Arabs a right to return does not imply that eight million people would return, but it does seem to me imply a change in the definition of what (and whom) Israel is for. (After all, there are more than eight million Jews outside of Israel.  They have the right to return -- even though their return would cause just as much of a population problem.) It seems to me that the POV implications of calling a demographic shift a "catastrophe" are not entirely dismissed by that argument.
:: At least half of the 8 million live in fairly poor conditions and are discriminated against. This won't be the case in the conjenctured Palestine (to the extent that the Palestinian government won't discriminate against its own citizens). Moreover, even if Palestine receives the whole West Bank and Gaza Strip, that would still be nothing short of a demographic catastrophe. Resources are already tight the way they are at this moment. --Uri
----
"Nevertheless, it is very rare for a non-Jew without family connections to Israeli citizens to be granted Israeli citizenship."  without additional data this sentance does not provide any information.  additional data required to evaluate the statement: 
# how many applications for citizenship....if applications are very rare then grants of citizenship will be very rare, a fortiori, even if all applications are approved.
# how many applicatants meet the three criteria stated here and other basic criteria.  Once again, if only the very rare applicant meets these rather standard criteria then grants of citizenship will be very rare, a fortiori, even if all applications are approved.
----
I think a more meaningful addition would be how difficult is it to actually get the right to live and work in Israel perm? For example, with the US you need a greencard which you can win eg through a lottery. In Australia and NZ, there are quotas each year and you generally get need a certain number of points based on a variety of factors and you'll get PR. In other countries, if you work a certain number of years you'll get PR or maybe can even straight away apply for citizenship. But of course, in this case a key question is how easy/hard is it to get a work permit in the first place?
(BTW, the Israel policies are discrimintory whichever way you look at it. Whether they are fair or not is another matter but they are clearly discriminitory since you're automatically allowed citizenship based on your religion/racial background.)
:No, you can apply for citizenship under the Law of Return if you meet certain criteria.  You are not "automatically allowed" citizenship simply because you are a Jew; some Jews do not qualify under the Law of Return, and many non-Jews do qualify. Jayjg 03:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Just an observation. The Jewish section is presented as if the Jewish right to be in Israel was never in dispute whereas the Palestinian right is presented as controversial and a "divisive issue". I wonder if this is fair. It seems that the Jewish right of return is at least as divisive and is vigorously disputed.--LeeHunter 22:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is currently no Jewish "right of return", if there ever was one; rather, there is an Israeli "law of return", which is simply factually described in the article. Jayjg 07:09, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the Israeli "law of return" doesn't really belong here, except perhaps as a "see also" reference to a separate article. It certainly doesn't make sense that the Israeli portion precedes the Palestinian if it doesn't address the title of the article. --LeeHunter 14:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I think it fair to state that non-Israeli Jewish rights under the Israeli law of return were never in dispute while non-Israeli Palestinian rights under the Israeli law of return are controversial.  The reason for this should be clear from the way I have phrased it.  The Law of Return is by definition an artefact of the Israeli state; any "right of return" is accessory to that Law.  It is therefore unsurprising that rights consistent with the State of Israel's founding are uncontroversial under its laws and vice versa. Hope that makes sense. --AnotherBDA 05:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The Jewish section is about the Law of Return. There is a seperate article for that. There is no need to repeat the same content here. A "See Also" section should be added to refer to it. Yodakii 13:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I see no reason for the Jewish Law of return section to be included here when a seperate article about the Israeli law already exists. I believe its inclusion here makes the article biased. You might as well merge this article with Law of Return.Yodakii 04:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rights of Return are not a unique phenomenon, and many countries have them.  Focussing on only one is the opposite of NPOV. If you think a merge is in order, there is a template for that. Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparing the Jewish and Palestinian sections

message: I had earlier changed this line to say that the Palestinians were "forced" to abandon their homes, which is how I understand what happened. To simply say they 'abandoned' their homes implies that they just walked away from them of their own free will, never wishing to return. My understanding is that it was more like they left their homes temporarily because of fears of violence and then were prevented from returning. Someone has reverted that to simply "abandoned" because it is  supposedly more NPOV. Since I don't agree with this I've reworded the section again so that the word "abandoned" is not used. Hopefully this works for everyone. --LeeHunter 23:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons they left were many, but your re-wording hardly works, since it was highly inaccurate.  I've put accurate figures in there instead. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 01:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide some sources for your figures, please. Who owned the other 70% of the land? The sources that I have found from a brief search    support my original figures of somewhere around +90 percent Palestinian and +/- 7 percent Jewish. This makes intuitive sense to me but I'm open to being educated if you can document something different. --LeeHunter 15:32, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The other 70% were public lands owned by the (Turkish) Ottoman government, and following that vested with the British Mandatory government.  Just before Israel declared statehood the Jewish National Fund had acquired a total of 936,000 dunams of land; another 800,000 dunams had been acquired by other Jewish organizations or individuals, amounting to 8.6% of the land of that would become the state. There was never a "Palestinian" government to own the land, and individual Arabs owned only 21% of the land. Here's some sources:   Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 19:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps there never was a Palestinian government to own the land but I'm not sure what that has to do with the issue. As you say, this "public" land was "owned" by one occupying power (the Turks) who passed it on to another occupying power (the British) who turned around and ceded it to a favored minority which then reserved it for the nearly exclusive use and enjoyment of their own ethnic group. If this property was truly public land, wouldn't the natural owners be the actual public that lived there, the people of Palestine (Arabs, Jews etc) and not the people of Great Britain? --LeeHunter 04:33, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Turks weren't an "occupying power", they were the legal owners of the land for centuries.  And the British didn't "cede" it to anyone; rather, the majority inhabitants of the area that became Israel (Jews) declared independence, and successfully defended themselves against attacks by 6 invading and occupying armies.  The "natural owners" of the land, i.e. the citizens of Israel (Jew and Arab both) then gained title, and they still own it today. Neither Jewish nor Arab citizens of Israel have "nearly exclusive use" of it. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 15:41, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I am not entirely sure if the majority of the inhabitants of what became Israel did declare independence.  The Jewish section of the population did - exactly how much of a majority were they given the need to remove the Palestinians to make a Jewish state?  But that is a quibble.  Surely you are oversimplifying the situation?  A huge chunk of land was given by the State of Israel to the Jewish Agency which doesn't reserve nearly exclusive use of it for Jewish Israelis.  It reserves entirely Jewish Israeli use of it - Arabs have had to go to court to fight for the right to rent JA land, and while one man has won, he has not yet been able to exercise that right.  At least that is the situation last I heard.  Finally the article states that Palestinians who remained kept their land and most of the land owned by those who fled was seized by the State of Israel.  Correct me if I am wrong, but Israel has a group of "Present-Absents" (i.e. people who did not flee but were deemed to have fled or moved to another place without leaving Israel) - citizens but who had their land seized.  On top of which the state rounded out a few corners by seizing some land anyway, and expelling a few more villages after the fighting stopped.  And all the land of those who fled was seized, not just some of it.  Surely the article ought to recognise that. Lao Wai 13:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Abandoned" homes 

message: I've also deleted the POV definition of right of return.  There needs to be some background as to where the definition comes from and who claims it as a definition.  Once again, factions are claiming "facts" and refusing to acknowledge that there are  no agreed on "facts" in this issue.  It would be much more honest to present "he says/she says" listings. Historyisapov
:The intro needs to stick to the facts, as the previous one was a bit of a personal essay. Which countries have a law of return (either so-called or called something else)? In which political discourses is a right of return referred to? So far as I know, there are two laws: Israel and Germany, and apart from those, one political discourse: Palestinian. Therefore the intro should state this and nothing else. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
::And do the Germans even still have one? I think the purpose of it was to allow Germans from the east to settle in the west. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:12, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
:::I was pretty sure it still existed. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: Aside from this being a misleading addition to the article (it is actually Indian Jews), and being overstated (the number given is high), this is also trivia, as Indian Jews represent only a tiny portion of the number of Jews who have moved to Israel. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  70,000 Indians 

message: An anon added the last sentence to this paragraph: "Significantly, the UN maintains a separate and distinct definition of the word "refugees" for Palestinians who left Israel in 1948 and/or 1967. Palestinian refugees from Israel are classed as both the individuals who left Israel and any descendants of those individuals. This stands in contrast to the UN definition of refugee as it applies to other displaced peoples, as in the latter case it refers only to those individuals who were forced to flee and not to their lineal descendants. This is in part because few refugee populations have been displaced for as long (almost 58 years) as the Palestinian refugees of 1948."
I removed the sentence because it begs the question. The paragraph is saying the UN maintains a distinct def of the word for Palestinians. To add that this is because few other populations have been displaced for so long is to overlook that they wouldn't be regarded as still being displaced were it not for the distinct UN definition, so the addition of that sentence makes the paragraph somewhat circular. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for my revert

message: I removed this material:
:This would amount to approximately 373,000 individuals (based on the population estimates used in the study) and does not include Palestinians living in other areas, such as North America, Europe, or Syria (which might bring the total to over 800,000).  The majority said that rather than returning to live in Israel, they would prefer to live in a Palestinian state, either in an existing Palestinian area or in an area that becomes Palestinian as the result of a territorial exchange.  
:These results are in stark contrast with Israeli public opinion. However, it should be noted that the Israeli concern of a demographic shift is not based on the fear of a short term shift alone. Although disputed, it is possible that in a few decades from now the Palestinians living inside Israel will constitute a majority because of their significantly larger birth rate, and even a comparatively small influx of Palestinians would hasten that event .
:There would also be an immensely complex and expensive legal disputes over the ownership of property. Prior to 1948 Jews owned almost 7% of the land and the Palestinians around 21%. Palestinians who stayed in Israel owned 3% of the land, and kept ownership of it, while the remaining 18% owned by exiled Palestinians was expropriated. Whilst Israeli-Arabs (20% of the population) own 3% of the land, and Jews own 3.5% of the land individually, most of the land (93.5%) is owned by the State and international Jewish organizations.
The statistics in the first paragraph are not coherent and the remainder of the paragraph adds nothing substantive (if only 10% wanted to go to israel, then obviously 90% don't).  The other two paragraphs are highly speculative and don't belong, and bordering on original research; let's stick to facts.  The demographic issues in the second paragraph are already mentioned in the text up above that still remains.  I also don't think that the source cited in the paragraph is especially credible.  As for the third paragraph, I don't think it's especially relevant, and I don't think the statistics are at all relevant.  No doubt there would be major land disputes -- but obviously there would be many other major issues as well (as there would be in any major population absorption), and certainly these would be addressed in any putative agreement. Benwing 06:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed questionable material 

message: what are laws for immigration to Jordan? are Jewish refugees from Jordan allowed to live in Jordan? yosef aetos
::Jews are excluded form citizenship in Jordan, and several other Arab states.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.24 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration laws of the Muslim world 

message: Is it possible for anybody to do a little research into those oddball countries which have next to no information concerning them (I saw Japan, Poland, and Lithuania)? Sire22 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oddball Countries 

message: Would it be worth mentioning that the right of return is a fairly new concept? Millions of Quakers, Huguenots, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, etc. fled various European countries due to religious persecution. Their descendants generally have no special right of return to those countries.
No doubt there are similar situations all over the world.41.243.113.222 15:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Except that we now have the UN and it's obligations which extend to all Member states, We also have Conventions and resolutions, which were NOT in place prior to the UN.  nofavour  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benni seidel (talk • contribs) 13:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No right of return 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Palestine is shown as a subsection under Israel. That is inherently POV and implies that Israel is inclusive of the whole area, a patently false claim, since Palestine also exists within the same geographical area. The two sections should both be at the same level, that is, Palestine deserves it's own H1 heading, just as Israel, or any other country does. Tagging this section for disputed neutrality is correct, and I endorse. — Becksguy (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel is a country. "Palestine" is a vague geographic area, and possible future country. Since Palestinians demand a "right of return" to the existing country of Israel, the previous hierarchy was logical and factual, not "POV". Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palestine and Israel sections unbalanced 

message: IP editor, the paragraphs you are repeatedly inserting into this article (as well as to Palestinian right of return) are unsourced. They appear to be your own personal viewpoints, created through original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please review our policy against origianl research, especially the part about using material published by reliable sources in a way that constitutes original research. Also, consider getting a user account, rather than utilizing multiple IP addresses, whcih could lead to having some of those blocked under our sockpuppet policy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research - note to IP editor from 86.108.nnn.nnn range 

message: I think the title "Israel" should be changed to Israel/Palestine. Especially since the Palestinians are discussed in this section. --Michael1408 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel/Palestine 

message: Further to discussion above, I am removing this section.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact on Israel

message: Is there any objection to changing the Israeli section to say that it gives the right to live in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories?93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel and the occupied territories

message: The section on 'Britain' (and I am changing that to 'United Kingdom', by the way) needs work. The general thrust is that an Act of Parliament gave people of British descent immigration rights.  That is not quit the case.  A series of Acts (passed 1962, 1968, 1971, and 1983)RESTRICTED the once very generous immigration laws of the UK.  One way in which Citizenship can be achieved is by having a by descent from a UK citizen.  The article then claims that this was intended to give citizenship to ethnic English, Scots, Welsh or Irish abroad.  In fact the sum total of all this legislation didn't give any immigration rights to people who would not have already had them, they excluded a number of other groups.  They are specifically NOT based on ethnicity, as the artilce implies.  A British-born UK-citizen ancestor of any ethnic origin (Jewish, Italian, Polish, Indian, Irish etc) is sufficient. In fact, Adoption is sometimes sufficient, so there does not have to be any ethnic connection. We need a citation for the idea that the intention of this succession of legislation was intended to benefit any particular ethnic group, or that has to be removed. A short snippet from a speech giving the personal motivations of one MP in voting for one particular piece of legislation (and it's unclear which of the four relevant Acts of Parliament this refers to)  has been given as supporting evidence. This MP dioes not seem to have had a hand in drawing any of the legislation. And as individual MPs support measures for a varietry of personal reasons that are often unconnected with the Bill's original intention, this does not demonstrate to motivation of the Government of the day. Indisciplined (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: UK

message: The part about dual citizenship French/Scottish sounds to me highly dubious. Following from the Act of Union  1707, there has been a single British citizenship, and the UK had been at war with France several times. The cited source is a historic accomodation site — it has absolutely no academic value. I've seen the same information being cited on many sites, but all of them are amateur and none cites the actual 1903 law (if discussing a French law, one should at least give a date and perhaps a Journal Officiel reference). David.Monniaux (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious blurb on Auld alliance 

message: I'm curious: do the Germans let German Swiss and Austrians (citizens of German-speaking countries) naturalize under Aussiedler? —Quintucket (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: So right after Indonesia ceased to officially be a Dutch colony and Indonesia was in power of the islands, the Dutch government declared something very similar to a right of return, only most citizens didn't truly "return", they just stayed in what is lawfully the same country. People living in Indonesia could freely migrate to the European Netherlands, as that's where they lived before according to the law. The same happened approximately a decade later with Suriname. KarstenO (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Right to return" for Indonesian Dutch citizens? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Right of return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mpsv.cz/scripts/clanek.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051127033448/http://www.irac.org/article_e.asp?artid=199 to http://www.irac.org/article_e.asp?artid=199
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110221203359/http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf to http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: : By contrast, the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.
These two sentences appear to be wrong. Citing Lawand:
: 2.3.1 The right to return as part of customary international law The fact that the right to return is expressly recognized in most international human rights instruments and draft declarations, that the constitutions, laws and jurisprudence of many States formally recognize it, that it is expressly protected in international humanitarian law instruments, and that it is consistently referred to in resolutions of UN organs dealing with the rights of refugees generally, supports the argument that the right exists in customary international law, although its precise content is difficult to define. At the very least, State practice indicates that a resident national will not be refused the right of re-entry.
Lawand clearly argues that the Right of Return is part of CIL. Then the sentence "international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship" is true but not really relevant. States does not have the right to refuse reentry of their citizens. Also I'm not sure why the cited source Liechtenstein v. Guatemala (the Nottebohm case) is relevant here. ImTheIP (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right of Return in CIL 

message: So this page is about the legal principle of a RoR. That right is awarded by a few conventions to people to allow them to return to their country of origin. However, the examples in the "By country" list are almost all of domestic laws to facilitate immigration of certain ethnic groups. Those laws are not manifestations of the principle of the RoR. Instead, they grant an option of returning to those ethnic groups in addition to the RoR extended to citizens of those countries. The difference is substantial. 
I don't know on which page this list belongs, either Immigration law or Nationality law.. I don't think it belongs on this page. ImTheIP (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the countries you removed provide a definite right of return - not just preference in immigration - but a right - I returned them. Conversely - groups arguing for a supposed right, but that do not have that right, should perhaps be removed.Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All states provide a right of return. Which is not strange because it is recognized as a human right. For example, an Italian citizen will not be barred from reentry after travelling abroad. Instead, what is interesting are groups claiming that their right of return has been denied to them. Note that the article is (and was before I edited it) about the right of return principle in international law. Laws that facilitate immigration for ethnic groups that states feel "belong to the nation" are not derived from this principle. Instead they are examples of Nationality laws which is why I moved them to that article. ImTheIP (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree in part to your edit - e.g. countries that allow immigration of people with grandparents / parents / former citizens / or return of citizens - are not conferring a right of return. However German immigration law allowing ethnic Germans (some residing abroad for hundreds of years - many generations) to return to Germany, the Hungarian immigration law (same provision - any ethnic Hungarian who can speak basic Hungarian), or the Israeli law of return - which allows any displaced Jew to return to Israel following a 2,000 year exile - all confer a right of return to an ethnic group. These are actual applications of a right to return. Various non-state groups making claims - are trying to gain some right, but don't have it as of yet (and may or may not have it in the future).Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then you first need to find authoritative sources which links the Israeli Law of Return and article 116 of the German Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany with the international law principle of the right of return. As a compromise (still wrong, though) I can agree on a link from this article to the Nationality law#Provisions_to_simplify_immigration_of_favored_ethnic_groups section in the other article. ImTheIP (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The basis for Israel's law of return (and the Zionist movement predating the state) is the supposed right of Jews to return to their homeland. There is ample sourcing for this (and likewise for other examples - e.g. the Greek diaspora (some of which, e.g. Pontic Greeks is long removed from Greece) and Greece). You made a rather huge change to this article (removing multiple countries and 2/3 of the text) - I do not think we will agree here if you insist on removing every country with a concrete right of return (concrete in the sense that you may demand this as a right in a court of law in the country) - I suggest you open a RfC if this is what you are shooting for.Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know  what the Zionist movement is. But this article is about a principle in public international law and international human rights law. The right of Jews to emigrate to Palestine and then Israel is a thought found in Zionist theory, but it is not based on international law. I hope you understand my point. It is not that I think the idea is "wrong," just that it is off topic for this particular article. I have therefore moved (not re-moved) the list that was on this page and placed it on nationality law. Reason being that the Law of Return and other similar laws are examples of (domestic) nationality law. But I'm open to compromise; we could for example create a new article: List of Countries with Special Citizenship Rules, List of Countries Encouraging Immigration of Diaspora Populations or something... I just don't want the list on this page because it confuses the reader. ImTheIP (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This should be here as this is an application of said right. If a future state of Palestine enacts a law of return based on some criteria for Palestinians should we remove them from this list? I think not.Icewhiz (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the Palestinians were allowed to return to their country of origin, IL would indicate that their right of return were no longer violated. They would perhaps remain in the list as an example of a past and now resolved dispute. ImTheIP (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Jewish claim to a right of return, which predates the Palestinian claim (in that the Zionist movement predates 1948) is based on the exact same grounds - the Jews as refugees from the Roman destruction some 1900 years ago, and lacking a modern state of their own (and thus remaining 2nd (or below) class citizens in modern nation states of other nations). Therefore, this should remain. As should other similar examples - such as the Pontic Greeks afforded a right of return to modern Greece. Whether these claims have merit is a separate issue from the exercise of said right.Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that the Zionist movement's ambition of a Return to Zion is much older than the formation of the right of return in international law proves that this ambition is not based upon international law. I hope you understand what I'm saying here. I'm not saying that it is not right of Israel to allow Jews to immigrate. I am saying that the laws that allows Jews to do so, is not based on international law. ImTheIP (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The various treaties codifying this right - were based on pre-existing examples of the application of this right. I don't think we will agree here (nor do previous editors on this page seem in agreement with your interpretation here of scope). I suggest you open a RfC if you think this is something you want to pursue. I do agree with you on the removal of some of the national immigration laws which only had a preference, not an absolute right.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I really should be more than 2 editors - shame no one else is watching. I didn't return Belarus (based on the information that was in the article) as it states "permanent residence term requirements may be waived for ethnic Belarusians and descendants of ethnic Belarusians born abroad" - thus this is not a definite right (it may be waived, may not), and it only applies to a particular aspect (waiving residence terms). Contrast this with Lithuania (again I didn't check this all the way through) - "Every Lithuanian person may settle in Lithuania." - in the constitution - thus is a constitutional right for every Lithuanian person to be able to live (settle) in Lithuania  - this is a definite right - not a "preferred treatment" in some aspect (which may or may not be applied) - but a definite right. If you look at the ones I brought back - they were all in the same vein - definite rights. I left out the ones where immigration / permenant residence / citizenship was easier for ethnic groups (or descendants of citizens) - but were not definite rights.Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. So according to you, some of these national laws grants "rights" to people, but some of them only grants what? Options? My tax code allows me to do several tax deductions if I choose to travel to work using an electric car. Have I been conferred a "right" by my state or an "option?" Would my "right" have been violated if my tax code didn't allow me to make those deductions? You seem to not understand what a human right is. ImTheIP (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Belarussian law, for instance, grants the authorities the option, at their discretion, to waive some requirements for ethnic Belarussians. It does not by itself grant said Belarussians any right - the authorities at their discretion (note some legal systems place limits on the use of discretion, though probably not here) may choose not to waive the residency requirement. Contrast this with a country where there is a constitutional right for some group to immigrate or settle. Members of said group can demand the right in court, if denied by authorities.Icewhiz (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: @Icewhiz: have you read the prior discussion on this talk page? Several editors have made roughly the same arguments as I'm making: "Part of the problem we have here is that this article mixes 'right of return' as part of international law and 'right of return' as applied in the immigration laws of certain states. The bulk of the article is about the latter kind. I think we should consider splitting it." ImTheIP (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest you RFC this - as it really is just the two of us. The previous article consensus was to include all these (and I agree with you that it was over bloated - I agreed on some of your redactions). Let's get other views if you want to nuke this all out.Icewhiz (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic immigration laws are not about Right of Return 

message: * Don't include the section: For the background to this RFC, please read the sections "lead and background" and "Domestic immigration laws are not about Right of Return" on this talk page. Two weeks ago, I started working on renovating this page because I thought it was in a sorry state. My work went unimpeded until I moved the huge "By country" list to Nationality law in this commit. 
:That caused the editor @Icewhiz to do a partial revert and return to this article countries whose immigration laws he claims are so forthcoming that they guarantee a "right of return." So now the same content is duplicated on both the Nationality law page and the Right of return page. I don't understand the editor's arguments at all here. I don't think there is any material difference between the Finnish Aliens Act, which it didn't return, and Article 116 of the German constitution. 
:I believe the editor is misguided and is juxtaposing domestic law and international human rights law. The topic of this article is clearly the latter. The right of return principle is associated with freedom of movement and is completely orthogonal to ethnocentric immigration laws which embodies ideas from nationalism. 
:In addition to that, the editor has not provided any scholarly sources which associates, for example, Article 52(5) of the Polish constitution with the right of return principle. Wikipedia is "connecting the dots" for the reader in a bad way. No scholarly source has been provided to show that this constitutional article means that Poland is an example of a "Country with laws conferring a right of return." In fact, all countries provide a right of return by virtue of readmitting their own citizens so the name of the section is wrong too. 
:Honestly, I think this is a clear-cut case, but the editor refuses to compromise (see the discussion) so I had to make this RFC. I hope people who are interested in international law will show up. ImTheIP (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We hashed it out on his talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:R._Feller So he saw my point of view. ImTheIP (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: While I do not like incorrect or partial information in articles, I dislike inconsistency anymore. Given that the "conferring..." list is here to stay for the foreseeable future, what should be done about the bigger list at Nationality law#Provisions_to_simplify_immigration_of_favored_ethnic_groups? ImTheIP (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel there is an issue with the existence of that list you bring it up on the talk page their.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threaded Discussion 

message: Is there a general consensus here to include in the current article the following edit, in the section entitled "Palestine", since it ostensibly speaks about the subject of the "Right of Return," and gives the current Israeli-government perspective on this issue?
:Proposed edit:
:"Israel's Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was reported as saying in June of 2017 that his government will not allow any Palestinians to settle in the lands claimed by them and currently part of Israeli territory.[1]"
*Notes:
:[1] Tom O'Conner, Israel Will Not Accept A Single Palestinian To Old Borders, Says Defense Minister, 23 June 2017
Davidbena (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we discussed it, but obviously the subject matter needs more input. Advice never hurts.Davidbena (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. We could have discussed it further on this talk page if you so had pleased. Rfc:s are usually created (I think) as a last step when nothing else has worked. ImTheIP (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No an rfc is not a last step. Its an early step especially when so few editors are involved in discussion of the subject.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

text: You can ask the user to address there close. It's clear there's a consensus for inclusion though.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC # 2, Section: Palestine 

message: * Yes, BUT - I'd include a short Israeli response, but not necessarily Lieberman or even anyone in particular - this has been a long standing Israeli position (beyond perhaps conceding a small token of a few thousand).Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we discussed it, but obviously the subject matter needs more input. Advice never hurts.Davidbena (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. We could have discussed it further on this talk page if you so had pleased. Rfc:s are usually created (I think) as a last step when nothing else has worked. ImTheIP (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No an rfc is not a last step. Its an early step especially when so few editors are involved in discussion of the subject.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I'm not sure it was proper to close this RFC. 4/5 (counting one anon user) is not a very strong consensus. ImTheIP (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You can ask the user to address there close. It's clear there's a consensus for inclusion though.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Right of return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304075359/https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf to https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705222308/http://athens.usembassy.gov/uploads/7z/Z4/7zZ4A6EyE4dMjph5dNxFew/citizenship_code.pdf to http://athens.usembassy.gov/uploads/7z/Z4/7zZ4A6EyE4dMjph5dNxFew/citizenship_code.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Removed this sentence:
: Refugees who are resettled into third countries lose refugee status and acquire a new nationality. They therefore lose the right to return to their country of origin.
The CN tag was:
: It's unclear what this is referring to. It doesn't seem to come from the UNHRC interpretation above, nor the Nottebohm case above, neither of which make mention of resettlement, or such resettlement causing loss of the right of return.
I agree with the CN tag. The sentene is very unclear. A refugee can't "forfeit" their right of return. It is not clear that a refugee loses their right of return even after being naturalized in their country of refuge.ImTheIP (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resettled refugees 

message: As can be seen both from the early versions of this article and the majority of the debate on this page, the raison d'etre of this article is as an apologia for Israel. Actually very few of the examples are similar.
But that's not my reason for commenting. Per WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY, it is not acceptable for editors to interpret legal documents such as constitutions. An example are Estonia, whose constitution says "Every Estonian has the right to settle in Estonia." There is no definition of Estonian ethnicity, but only of Estonian citizenship. Without expert interpretation based not only on this one sentence, but also on the citizenship and immigration laws plus relevant court rulings, it is not possible to say exactly what it means in practice. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to do such analysis. Lithuania is the same, and it looks like others are too. All of this has to go if it isn't cited to reliable secondary sources. Sources that mention these countries in passing are not acceptable either. Zerotalk 09:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: no idea what you mean with undue and one-sided? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last edit