This godforsaken country is introducing the bill that allows to strip people of birth-given russian citizenship for some things - like desertion and discreditation of army (which happens every time you question war)

So, my question, if someone loses all citizenship, what happens next? Is their life basically over? Is there a way to re-gain citizenship (like, in another country)? Can they be deported?

  • Solivine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I honestly don’t know, I remember someone got trapped at an airport once because their country stopped existing while they were there

    • Something Burger 🍔@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is so infuriating. The country didn’t disappear overnight. The land is still there, they could have sent him back. Even if the country was nuked to ashes, they could just accept him as a political refugee.

    • PopularUsername@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It was someone suffering from a mental illness or personality disorder. They went out of their way to be stuck at the airport. Refused help from family, refused help from a reporter who actually went through the trouble of proving his citizenship. He wanted to be at that airport and live that life.

  • Mic_Check_One_Two@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You become stateless, and it’s a legal nightmare. Most countries won’t deport you, because they have nowhere to deport you to. But some countries like Australia will detain you until you get citizenship elsewhere. Sort of a catch-22, where you need to apply for citizenship to get out of prison, but can’t because no country wants to grant you citizenship because you’re in prison. The act of being stateless in itself isn’t a crime, but living somewhere without a visa is, and some countries (like Australia) don’t automatically grant visas to stateless people without some other reason like a refugee application.

    Prior to the 60’s, it used to be much more common, because most countries use a legal concept called Jus Sanguinis, which basically means that citizenship gets passed from parents to children via birth. America, on the other hand, uses something called Jus Soli, which grants citizenship based on you being born in the country. But if the parents aren’t eligible to pass their citizenship on and the country they’re in doesn’t practice Jus Soli, then the child would be stateless. Back in the 60’s, most Jus Sanguinis countries agreed at a convention to provide emergency citizenship to individuals who would otherwise be born stateless.

    These days, the largest causes are typically financial/records keeping issues in third world countries, or are due to politics like you’re describing. In the former, imagine a Jus Sanguinis country where you need to prove who your parents are. But they don’t have copies of their birth certificates or your birth certificate, and you don’t have money to get new ones. There’s also an administrative fee when you try to file the paperwork, and you can’t afford it. In the latter, it’s often due to good old fashioned racism. Certain ethnic groups being denied citizenship (like the Uyghur Muslims in China, or the Koreans in Japan following world war 2.) It’s also commonly due to authoritarian governments stripping citizenship for arbitrary reasons like you’ve mentioned. Russia isn’t the first to strip citizenship; It’s also common in parts of the Middle East.

    • athos77@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      America, on the other hand, uses something called Jus Soli, which grants citizenship based on you being born in the country.

      I would clarify this from “America” to “most of the New World”.

    • Lotus Eater@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Asia and the Pacific - 1.582 million registered

      Africa - 715,089 registered

      Europe - 570,534 registered

      Middle East and North Africa - 372,461 registered

      Americas - 2,460 registered

      These are really interesting numbers, I wonder if it has to do with immigration policies

      • Drusas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        A lot of it has to do with racism and not allowing full citizenship rights to minority groups.

        • ladybug@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Example of the above:

          In the lead up to the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, the government published a formal list of every recognized ethnic group in the country to specifically exclude the Rohingya. This allowed them to paint the group as “illegal immigrants from Bangladesh” (despite having been in the country for centuries), remove their citizenship and thus their rights to education and work.

          Link about the 1982 citizenship law: https://burmacampaign.org.uk/media/Myanmar’s-1982-Citizenship-Law-and-Rohingya.pdf

        • hemko@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          A huge reason I’d assume is soviet occupants in post-soviet countries. Correct me if I’m wrong here, many of Russians from soviet era living in Baltics with no Russian citizenship and haven’t applied and passed local citizenship, are stateless. This is due to requirements like knowing the local language

      • Deuces@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Okay, my initial reading of these numbers were that the Americas must be shit at accepting people, then I did a short wiki dive and it has this:

        Jus soli in many cases helps prevent statelessness.[11] Countries that have acceded to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness are obligated to grant nationality to people born in their territory who would otherwise become stateless persons.[12][a] The American Convention on Human Rights similarly provides that “Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality.”[11]

        And now I’m thinking maybe the numbers are so low in a good way?

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    You should still be able to apply for refugee, asylum, permanent residency, or citizenship in other places. Whether or not that’s realustica and feasible is another issue, but legally, you’re fine: Your citizenship status at home won’t affect your ability to seek a new home.

    • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I suspect the best bet at the moment would be trying to ask Finland for asylum, since they’re not allied with Russia. Getting within their territory might be challenging, though, as I suspect they’ll require identification and/or outright block Russians from entering. Also, I have no idea how to proceed once within a different country. Maybe one of the baltic states might also work?

      • Revan343@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        or outright block Russians from entering

        If you’ve been stripped of citizenship for opposing the war, are you still Russian?

        Obviously that’s semantics, and what matters will be whether Finland still considers you Russian, but I think it would be in their benefit to allow entry to former Russians who are explicitly opposed to Russia’s bullshit

    • preasket@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I bet even if they tried to deport you, they wouldn’t know where to, since you technically don’t have a home country

  • Meldrik@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    Russia is not part of the UN convention that forbids making a person stateless, but I don’t think that would have mattered anyway.

    As a stateless person, you can seek asylum in almost any European country.

  • driving_crooner
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can get Brazilian citizenship if you are statelessness, here’s an article about it . Iirc, you can do this from anywhere on the world, but doing it from inside brazillian territory would make it easier.

  • HomebrewHedonist@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What happens is that you become a stateless person, just like the Palestinians once where. I can’t speak for Russian law.

    • PitzNR@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s still true for a lot of druze I the Golan heights, and while it doesn’t have a drastic effect on their daily lives, traveling abroad is an absolute nightmare

  • Louisoix@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    God, I honestly hope they revoke mine. Come what may, I don’t think the general opinion about Russians will change any time soon.

    • Yulia@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Once I can get citizenship in another country, I’m gonna publically burn my russian passport - but not earlier

      • OwlPaste@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’d advise against it if purely for ease of life in your new home country. Some, like UK require you to still have dealings with your previous country.

        For example if i want to change my surname to my wifes name, home office demanded that i change the surname in my original passport first. They even say that if you need to physically go to your country of origin to do so, you have to unless they will kill you (for example persecution of LGBT). But i donno what kind of proof they would need to support this claim.

        I have a strong suspicion that “burned my passport as a statement” would not qualify, even if it means supporting a terrorist state with cash (because consular services are paid by cash in 3rd world countries.)

        • merde alors@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          this depends on your situation. If you did seek asylum from russia, you won’t be asked to “have dealings with your previous country”. You will even be asked not to have any.

          • OwlPaste@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They provided me with a list of exceptions but these were all relatively vague and could be interpreted in many ways. For example “wanting not to support a terrorist state financially” was not on the list. Just saying that there may be a benefit to keep at least the expired passport. Maybe in which ever country op goes to, they might have more sensible rules than here.

  • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    If your home country revokes your rights as a citizen, I would imagine that it gives you justification to claim refugee status with the UN.

  • 100thCatMarch@kbin.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You’ll want to read up on Shamima Begum. She’s currently stateless right now. Here’s another article from Time if you want more information. Though her case is a bit different since she’s a terrorist