Talk:Multiple citizenship

message: I removed the following dubious assertion:
:Some, if not all, unitary states permit only one citizenship. Other states (e.g. federal nations) permit dual or multiple citizenship.
The Republic of Ireland is a unitary state permitting dual citizenship; Germany is Federal republic not permitting it. Joestynes
: Germany does allow dual citizenship in certain circumstances.  EG a child born in the US to German parents will usually have dual US/German citizenship.  And Germans wishing to naturalise elsewhere can keep German citizenship provided they get permission to do so in advance.  JAJ 00:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right that the situation re Spanish citizenship for PR residents does not fall under a treaty arrangement, and the article cites no source to support an assertion that it does. I have reworded that part of the article slightly to remove this assertion. Re PR citizenship, see the Puerto Rican citizenship article; this is also discussed briefly in this article, under Subnational citizenship. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMOVAL 

message: "Example 17: A Jewish person, or a person with at least one Jewish grandparent, or a person who converts to Judaism, who makes aliyah to Israel will be an Israeli citizen in addition to their original citizenship, by operation of the Law of Return. For example, a Jewish person born in South Africa to British parents will be South African by birth, British by descent and Israeli on aliyah. Israeli citizenship is bestowed three months after aliyah and a full Israeli passport is issued after one year's residency."
Per the Rufeisen decision, this may not apply to someone who has converted from Judaism to another religion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.198.120 (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: This section states that 'state citizenship' is obtained by becomeing resident of the state. Does this apply to non-US citizens? Ie. Is a Mexican who is legally resident in Texas a citizen of Texas, but not a US citizen? Or should we qualify the statement by saying that "A US citizen obtains a state citizenship by becoming resident there." Seabhcán 09:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-national citizenship - US state citizenship question... 

message: The term "recognise" is potentially ambiguous in a discussion of multiple citizenship.  Some (probably most) people will be thinking of whether a given country allows its citizens to hold additional citizenships — but others will assume the term refers to whether a given country acknowledges (or cares about) the fact that one of its citizens might also have another citizenship (i.e., whether or not a country gives any different status to one of its citizens if he/she also has citizenship in some other country).
In order to sidestep this potential for confusion, I would recommend that most (possibly all) uses of "recognize" in this article should be replaced with "allow" or "permit" — since that's what is really being discussed (does a given country allow one of its citizens to also be a citizen of another country?).
Admittedly, I have read of a few cases where the other kind of "recognition" of multiple citizenship exists — e.g., treaties where Country X agrees not to assert its own citizenship claims against one of its expatriates who enters on a passport from Country Y — but that's a very different matter.
Richwales 18:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I haven't noticed this. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is now a para in the intro on this issue. In most cases, what is being discussed as "recognizing", allowing, etc., boils down to not actively stopping - either legally or in practice, and multiple citizenship may exist in practice, but not in law in many countries.--Gregalton 07:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem talking about "recognition" of multiple citizenship 

message: I invite all of you to read the excellent article on the German nationality law before deliberating on Germany's multiple citizenship policy. The age limitation provision applies to those who became German by birth, and not citizenship by descent. In other words, a person born in the USA to non-naturalized German parents remains a German citizen for the duration of their life, while a child born to foreigners in Germany must choose at the age of 23 or lose German citizenship. 69.151.233.215 02:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany and Age Limitation

message: The map is plain wrong. I'm a dual citizen. I was born in Fort Collins, CO and I live in Valencia, Spain. I hold a spanish ID card and a US passport. Never had a problem and none of the two countries challenged me.
--81.202.158.49 10:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain 

message: I have moved a para recently added at the end of the lead section of this article over here, feeling that discussion is needed.  The para which I moved reads as follows:
Firstly (and this point applies to other parts of the lead section as well), this material does not belong in the lead section.  WP:GTL says:
This material (and some other material currently in the lead section) does not fit that description.
Secondly, and more specifically about this material, it makes assertions which, IMO, need to be supported by cited sources:
#China, for example, has refused to acknowledge the Canadian naturalization of prisoner Huseyincan Celil
#and has rebuffed attempts by Canadian diplomats to intervene in his case
#insisting that Celil is a citizen of China despite his having previously moved to Canada and become a citizen of that country
Those assertions may be supportable, but a quick search by me failed to turn up sources supporting them.  I did find this requote of a Hamilton Spectator article in which the writer reports "... raising fears China still regards him as a Chinese national and is ignoring Canadian requests to see him and check on his wellbeing."  Another article says "... said Foreign Minister Peter MacKay, complaining Beijing repeatedly refused to let Canadian officials visit the man.", which might go to point #2 above except for the question of whether attempting to visit the man is equivalent to attempting to intervene in the man's case (I think not).  Other articles (, , etc.) throw interesting sidelights on this case.
Thirdly, I think that this is too specifically about this one case to be appropriately presented in this article.  If it goes anywhere, it should probably go in the Huseyincan Celil article.  Once the point is made in that article, that article might be mentioned here (note that contentious assertions from that article repeated in this one would need to be supported by source citations here). 
In passing, I noted that Article 9 of the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China says: "Any Chinese national who has settled abroad and who has been naturalized as a foreign national or has acquired foreign nationality of his own free will shall automatically lose Chinese nationality."  If that is to be mentioned, it needs to be supported by a reliable source outside of wikipedia.  This would probably do. In connection with this, I suspect that status as a foreign national does not confer immunity from prosecution on terrorism charges in China (or in Canada, or in the U.S.)-- Boracay Bill 01:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing article on Huseyincan Celil cites several sources in support of the claims in question.  And the issue in Celil's case is not whether Celil is immune from prosecution by China — he certainly is not — but, rather, whether China is acknowledging Celil's status as a Canadian citizen and respecting his right to have Canadian diplomatic officials make representations in his behalf (something the Chinese government has so far not allowed to happen, even though Chinese law would appear to go against their claim that Celil is still a Chinese citizen and thus not entitled to contact from Canadian diplomats).  I feel the material in question (which I added and you removed) is appropriate and deserves to be mentioned somewhere in the "multiple citizenship" article.  Richwales 05:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of para re the case of Huseyincan Celil, moved here from the article intro 

message: The comment which I deleted from Example 11 was: "A similar clause in the Oath of citizenship (United States) is never enforced."
* in the case of Taiwan, we're talking about renouncing citizenship. In the case of the U.S. Oath, we're talking about renouncing allegiance and fidelity — not comparable cases.
* in the case of Taiwan, we're talking about nationality law.  In the case of the U.S., we're talking about an oath. Laws can be directly enforced, oaths cannot — not comparable cases. -- Boracay Bill 03:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 11 -= Deleted gratuitous comment from Example 11 

message: I have reinstated some text regarding Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) that was previously deleted.  It is indeed the case, as the person making the deletion noted, that Overseas Citizenship of India does not confer regular dual or multiple citizenship.  However, it was never my intention to claim that.  I merely claim that there is a trend, in recent years and in some nations, in the direction of allowing dual/multiple citizenship.  I merely claim that India has taken a step in that direction with OCI, not that India has or will go all the way to permitting full dual/multiple citizenship.  Clearly, from the reference cited, OCI conveys some rights that an ordinary non-Indian citizen does not enjoy, although also OCI stops well short of conveying full citizenship rights.  I therefore claim it is a step towards dual/multiple citizenship.  I would also add that relying on a given country's own documents as to what is/is not dual/multiple citizenship can be unreliable, as many countries are reluctant to acknowledge that they permit dual/multiple citizenship even if they do--to avoid the impression of double loyalties.  I have reworded the text a bit to try to make my meaning clearer--feel free to rework it some more but clearly OCI is an important data point in this discussion and should not simply be removed from the article.--Dash77 21:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overseas Citizenship of [[India]] 

message: I've moved Example 14 here for discussion because I have problems with it. It reads:
Example 14: A person born to in the U.S. to Filipino parents immediately become a U.S. citizen then a Filipino citizen but even before the child becomes a Filipino citizen as well he/she may live in the Philippines until then because he/she`s parents are Filipino. Since the childs parents are Filipino the child is eligible for a Filipino citizenship.
Article IV of the Philippine constitution reads {see here):
As I read this, the child is a Philippine citizen at birth. Given this, the example might more correctly read:
Example 14: A person born in the U.S. and having at least one Filipino parent is a citizen of both the U.S. and of the Philippines at birth.
However, I'd question whether this example would add enough to the article to justify its appearance. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example 14 

message: A table (either on this page, or another page) may be useful in demonstrating which countries allow dual citizenship (through either permission by law or omission of any law making it illegal) and with what countries they may allow it, as well as any restrictions they place on that. For example a child born to a Korean parent and a foreign parent can be allowed to have dual citizenship until they are 21 years of age, but at 21 under korean law they must choose one of the them. I'm not sure if a country may for example allow dual citizenship with any country, but then state, countries x, y, z are not permitted.--Crossmr (talk) 02:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: first sentence says father's nationality (US) is automatically acquired. second sentence says US citizenship may be acquired. someone please fix this.
:I've edited Example 7. My edit results in substantive change. I'm not nationality law expert, and welcome any needful corrections. Having done this edit, I observe that Example 7 does not really relate to multiple citizenship; it relates to the application of the separate and differing nationality laws of several nations in a particular exceptional circumstance. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exampel 7 has typo somewhere 

message: I'm adding Congress's CRS reports to their relevant pages, since they're so thorough and you can just copy-and-paste the content ... here's yours: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS:_DUAL_CITIZENSHIP%2C_October_1%2C_1998
By the way, this page is going to need a split for dual citizenship (United States), IMHO.  That sounds a tad silly, but maybe we'll have an infobox/template with all the countries in it, appearing on the page of every country's "dual citizenship" article.  (eventually.) Agradman talk/contribs 08:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I vaguely recall this as a revert I did while doing vandal patrol with [[WP:Huggle}}. I may have mistaken the edit I reverted for an edit of a mainspace article, (I had set up Huggle to queue only edits to mainspace articles). Whether the link is in talkspace or mainspace, however, I find that clicking the link above brings up a plea from wikileaks for donations. It looks like spam to me. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's spam.  I had not gotten the donation request you're referring to, instead I got taken to a page with a link to the PD article.   Tonight, though, I am getting the solicitation.  I think when Wikileaks' servers are overloaded, they put up the begging response.  But in ordinary times, this leads to a highly relevant public-domain CRS publication on multiple citizenship.  BTW, FAS.ORG is another good resource for CRS pubs. TJRC (talk) 08:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Agradman explained on my talk page here that the "error" page I was seeing which asked for donations to wikileak reflected the fact that Wikilinks on wikilink were experiencing some downtime. At the time of the explanation, my clicks on the external link above still navigated me to a page asking for donations. As of now, it navigates me to a page on wikileaks which contains a wikilink offering to download a PDF copy of the report. I think that the link is useful and probably ought to be mentioned in the article if it continues to allow downloading of the report. If it navigates to a page requesting donations to wikileak, I think it ought to be considered spam. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a different issue, and I agree with the general principle that we shouldn't have an external link to a site that does not have consistent availability.  But this was an edit to the Talk page, not to the article, to make other editors aware of the CRS report, so they can use its contents as a resource to develop the article.  That's a legitimate talk page comment. TJRC (talk) 07:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not a link is considered spam is one thing; whether and under what circumstances spam links are acceptable on talk pages is another. Inconsistent availability is one thing; redirection of links targeting unavailable pages to an alternative page which solicits donations is another. As I said earlier, I may have mistaken the edit I reverted for an edit of a mainspace article. I have no problem with the link appearing here. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text: And the original PDF at . TJRC (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free encyclopedic public domain source (CRS report) 

message: "Colloquial speech refers to humans "holding" multiple citizenship but technically each nation is making a claim that this person be considered its national. For this reason it is possible that a person be a citizen of one, none or many countries."
The first sentence (above) doesn't make much sense to me.  What's the distinction? Agradman talk/contribs 06:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit late on the reply, but I think the point being made is that the individual does not "hold" the citizenship rather the nation "holds" the individual as a national. --Khajidha (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  connfused by the lead 

message: It's way too long and full of obscure corner cases.  Since Wikipedia is not a guide book or an indiscriminate collection of information it should be trimmed down or removed. Someidiot (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples section 

message: This edit, with an edit summary saying that you cannot buy an US Citizenship, popped up on my watchlist. Correct, AFAICT, and the assertion that this can be done is not supported by the source cited in the article. However, a path to U.S. citizenship can be purchased — through participation in the EB-5 visa program. That is US-specific, though, and not directly/immediately related to the article topic. It may or may not be appropriate to mention that info in this article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As you pointed out, holding a visa is different from holding a citizenship. Therefore, this interesting fact has no place here. Tomeasy T C 07:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  EB-5 Visa 

message: In contrast to what is mentioned in the beginning of the article, Germany DOES allow dual citizens (I am one, with US citizenship as well) in certain situations.  In my case, it is because of a law in Germany that allows descendants of those who lost citizenship in the Third Reich to recover citizenship.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.142.79.254 (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, but the principle in Germany still is no multiple citizenship - with several exemption 12:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany part 2 

message: "A 2007 US study confirmed the negative effect of dual citizenship in the United States on assimilation and political connectedness for first generation Latino immigrants finding that dual nationals are: 32% less likely to be fluent in English, [...]" -- Wouldn't correlation does not imply causation be applicable here? I'm not sure why this article was cited here, because it seems to me that it has confirmed squat... - 219.79.122.178 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. The source is all about correlation, simply. However, the source itself makes the claim of negative effect. I think we should at least distance ourselves from this claim, if we want to report it. E.g., by substituting "confirmed" with "alleges". Tomeasy T C 19:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative effects? 

message: Why was the map removed.graphical representation would be much easier to understand  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.44.161 (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  where is the MAP 

message: I've moved the following text here from the article:
It is unsupported, and appears to be at least partially erroneous. My understanding is that there is no problem in U.S. law with a naturalized U.S. citizen holding other citizenships. The U.S. naturalization process requires the taking of an oath renouncing other allegiences; however, the effect of taking such an oath on other citizenships held is not determined by U.S. law. Rather, it would be determined by the law of the countries where other citizenships are held. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple citizenship of Irish politicians 

message: I wonder if another category is needed. I believe Malaysia and Singapore are fairly similar. A child is allowed to hold dual citizenship up to a certain age (21 in Malaysia, 22 in Singapore). An adult cannot hold dual citizenship and if the authorities find out policy is either you renounce your other citizenship/s or it will be removed (although in Malaysia I believe they sometimes don't really give you the option of renouncing it). However it isn't automatic. The constitution of Malaysia simply says your citizenship may be removed if you have dual citizenship and so the government does need to go thru a process to revoke your citizenship. Not an RS but see . I considered moving this to 'possible' but IMO possible isn't strong enough. It seems to suggest it may happen but it's not guaranteed, whereas with Malaysia and I believe Singapore it's pretty much guaranteed you will lose your citizenship if it's found you have multiple citizenship, it's simply that it's not automatic under law. Oh and Malaysia also has subnational citizenship with migration to East Malaysia limited . (I'm lazy to add sources and I dislike adding something without sources so won't be adding it for now.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to just move Malaysia. Nil Einne (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malaysia and Singapore 

message: I have amended this section to read 'Conversely, that such a person has not acted in this way does not necessarily mean that they are not *entitled to be* an Irish citizen.'  See  Irish nationality law - at birth and sources cited therein.
Alekksandr (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entitlement to Irish citizenship 

message: I have a friend which was born in US and than moved to Kuwait. His father is Turkish and his mother is Turkish Cypriot. So he is eligible to hold USA, Kuwait, Turkey, Cyprus and North Cyprus citizenships. But he only holds Turkey and USA passports.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.142.141.25 (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Possibility 

message: I noticed that in the section detailing exceptions to the automatic loss of Czech citizenship, the relevant date is listed as "September 31, 1992".  September only has 30 days.  Is the correct date September 30 or December 31 or something else? 1.127.255.247 (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe an impossible date was chosen to make "before" vs "after" unambiguous? —Tamfang (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech/Slovak Citizenship - Incorrect Date 

message: Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, Australian or otherwise, nor have I ever played one on TV (small joke there).
This edit, adding some detail re the Sue v Hill case in Australia, caught my eye. The edit relied on this previously cited source. The added content seems entirely reasonable, but I am unable to find support for it in the cited source. Am I missing something? Is this WP:original research? Does this need clarification and/or another supporting cite? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:55, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I was the one who edited the previous section about Sue v Hill.  The IP will probably be different as I use a mobile broadband device in Australia and the IP address changes each time.  It so happens that I am a lawyer and this was one of my favourite cases from law school, particularly as I hold a non-Australian citizenship.  The findings in Sue v Hill which I added were taken from my Australian Public Law course.  In the judgement, at [176], the High Court ruled that if a person holds dual citizenship they must take reasonable steps to renounce it, the implication flowing from that is that unreasonable steps will not be required or if reasonable steps have been taken and that the citizenship has not been revoked by the other country, for whatever reason, then that person will still be allowed to sit in Parliament.  As far as I know, no one has ever had to challenge their election based on the steps to renunciation being unreasonable.  I hope that answers the question.  If required by Wikipedia policies, I'll try to provide a more to the point reference from a law text. 1.126.85.73 (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that in the ruling at what you call "[176]", now that you've led me by the nose to it. I also see at "[104]" that Hill had taken steps to renounce her British citizenship. Those steps, however, were taken subsequent to her election victory -- not soon enough to prevent the problem situation. This level of detail (more than is presented in the Sue v Hill article) seems misplaced here in this article (see WP:SYNC). The Sue v Hill article might benefit from inclusion of some detail there re "[104]" and "[176]", and info re "[176]" then would fit better here. I might try to add that, but my efforts would probably be ham-handed (what ought "[104]" and "[176]" be called, anyhow? Notes? Footnotes? Something else?). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Hill had taken steps to renounce her other citizenship but they were deemed not reasonable steps and so her election was invalid, though not the entire election.  The other candidates were allowed to have their preferences (Australia uses a preferential voting system) redistributed.  I think it turns out that the other One Nation candidate won anyway.  To answer your question, when giving pinpoint references for cases the convention is to use "[x]".  Those individual sections are called "paragraphs".  So, when citing a case, you would speak, " In Sue and Hill at paragraph 176" but written it would appear as, "In Sue v Hill at [176]". 1.127.42.153 (talk) 11:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Following on this exchange and in consideration of WP:SYNC, I'm adding a section at Sue v Hill#Hill's renunciation. I've referred to the relevant paragraphs as paragraph nnn, as the decision contains other items identified therein as [nnn] which match the relevant paragraph numbers. Cheers. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sue v Hill 

message: I've removed an assertion saying "Only two countries base taxation on citizenship: the United States and Eritrea" from the article. this source was cited in support, and tagged . I don't know about the reliability of that source, but (1) I was unable to confirm support of that assertion at the cited URL, and (2) The Philippines taxes its overseas citizens (see ). Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the captioned statement to be more accurate and specific: "Only two countries tax their non-resident citizens on foreign income", cited to a more reliable source (renunciationguide.com was a WP:SPS that has since disappeared). The Philippines, like most countries, uses source-based taxation for all non-residents, differing only in the tax rate applied to citizens vs. non-citizens. As your link states: "Nonresident citizen - taxed similarly as a resident citizen on incomes from sources within the Philippines." Thanks, quant18 (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you got that in writing! —Tamfang (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Anyone interested might look at the IRS publication Tax Guide for U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens Abroad. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

text: It might apply equally to any overseas citizen if you're looking at from the viewpoint of a citizen of some particular country (e.g., the U.S.), but the details of how it applies varies when looked at from a wider viewpoint. See the table in International taxation#Taxation systems. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship and tax liability 

message: "Multiple citizenship, also called dual citizenship ..." begins the article but this isn't right, dual is two but multiple can be more. Jimp 08:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple citizenship ≠ dual citizenship 

message: I have added "United States of America" to list of "very difficult/humiliating/expensive renunciation processes". Reasons: 1) Fee for renunciation is now $2350 per person, easily $10,000 or more for a family, and 2) the US has ambushed several million "US persons" living outside the US who are "accidental" Americans. That is, they are citizens of another country who have acquired US citizenship inadvertently, e.g. when their parents were temporarily living in the US. Some Canadians have been born in US border hospitals due to medical emergency. The US is demanding that these individuals, mostly people who had no idea they were "Americans", pay minimum 28% of their (criminal) "foreign" financial assets or face penalties in excess of 100%. In order to renounce US citizenship, they must file taxes and pay all penalties assessed by the IRS and US Treasury.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.192.149 (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Involuntary multiple citizenship 

message: The article text should be improved where it uses the terms 'state', 'country' and 'nation' interchangeably. They refer to separate and different notions. --62.16.186.44 (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More specific language 

message: The arrangements surrounding Norfolk Island have completely changed recently, though I am unsure to what effect. Can someone double check that a separate NI 'citizenship' still exists?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.48.18 (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norfolk Island 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Multiple citizenship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081117174720/http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/dualcitizen.htm to http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/dualcitizen.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've edited the list item Possible (but not automatic) loss of citizenship as follows:
*Removed Singapore; Part  of http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=ac2bcc0c-2264-45f0-a8c4-4547db3f79f2;page=0;query=DocId%3A%22cf2412ff-fca5-4a64-a8ef-b95b8987728e%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0#pr128-he-. appears to say that citizenship would only be removed if renounced.
*Removed Malaysia; Part III, Chapter 2 of http://confinder.richmond.edu/admin/docs/malaysia.pdf seems to indicate that removal of citizenship is available via voluntary renunciation.
Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple citizenship avoided 

message: Apart that this version of the map does not include disputed European territories (e.g. Kosovo, Northern Cyprus etc) and new countries (e.g. South Sudan), it’s incomplete (e.g. Serbia (Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, II Acquiring of citizenship by admission, C)), Albania (Article 3), Macedonia (Article 2) allow dual citizenship), it’s inaccurate (e.g. Germany allows dual citizenship on conditions (Germany (, , , ), and the map does not correspond with the text (e.g. appears Greece, Austria, and Germany as not allowing it, while text says –rightly–otherwise). 
But the major problem is that while most of the (at least European) countries do allow a future citizen to retain the old citizenship, or allow own citizens to acquire a new citizenship ex lege, some of them do not allow own citizens to obtain another citizenship by will, before they renounce their citizenship (or automatically lose it). 
In order for this map to be accurate, it must include more legends, e.g.:
#dual citizenship both ways – countries that allow a person wanting to become citizen not to relinquish prior citizenship, and a citizen want to acquire another citizenship, to retain the citizenship of his country
#dual citizenship only ex lege – countries that allow a citizen acquire a citizenship of another country that is entitled ex lege, but would not allow a citizen to acquire willingly another citizenship before relinquishing his / her citizenship
#only allow the citizenship of the country no matter what 
#limited to certain countries
#Striped legend for conditions – that is, where there are conditions under which something is allowed or not allowed. 
Or something like that. Actually, because only few countries (I don’t know, if any?) allow only the country’s citizenship NO MATTER WHAT, we can start by finding them and add them to the map as red. Then, find the countries that (again I don’t know if any) allows dual citizenship again no matter what (except of course of fraud, law violation etc), and add them with green. And stop there, because all the other countries in world would allow dual citizenship one way or another. Wolfymoza (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map removal 

message: I find that this article is difficult to extract country-specific information from, because the text is not laid out in a clear manner, the information provided is not consistent between countries, and much of it is ambiguous and/or written in a 'chatty' style.  I would suggest that the entire article needs to be re-written as well as laid out differently.  There should also be included a table summarising the situation (multiple citizenship allowed vs. not) by country, for ease of reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.131.57 (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor quality of writing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Multiple citizenship. 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  tag to http://www.bmeia.gv.at/en/embassy/ottawa/practical-advice/austrians-in-canada/citizenship.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504131659/http://moia.gov.in/services.aspx?id1=35&id=m3&idp=35&mainid=23 to http://www.moia.gov.in/services.aspx?id1=35&id=m3&idp=35&mainid=23
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111211101623/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/general/constitution/constit.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/general/constitution/constit.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060404042127/http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/IS-01.pdf to http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/IS-01.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) 04:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: A marker has been placed on the "National cohesiveness" section of "Effects and potential issues" questioning its neutrality. However I can't seem to find any significant discussion on this here.
In my view at least this section isn't written neutrally and I am unsure why it needs to exist at all.
108.50.198.68 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of "Effects and potential issues" section 

message: Germany's Bundesrat approved an amendment to the Nationality Act on January 19, 2024 that, relevant to this article, undoes the ban on dual citizenship.
Technically it hasn't taken effect yet - nobody knows for sure when it will, but smart money is on June or July 2024 - but when it does, the information on Germany will become out of date. Cyversch (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 2024 changes 

message: New Law - Emenda Constitucional 131 of 2023 passed in Brazil now allows dual citizenship even in the case of willing naturalization in a second nationality. There is no situation now in which a dual citizenship is not permitted (it was already permitted if the second nationality was a birth right).  Some elements of the article need updating to reflect this. 185.76.228.248 (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Brazilian law in 2024