Nevis Second Citizenship Programs

The citizenship-by-investment program offered by The Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis allows those who invest in a nice piece of real property or make a contribution to a government sugar diversification program to qualify for full citizenship.

The Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis, an English speaking two-island nation in the Caribbean, established in 1984 the Federation's citizenship-by-investment program. This second citizenship program is the oldest and most respectable of three existing second citizenship programs in the world. The other two are in the Commonwealth of Dominica and Austria.

Any person can apply for naturalization and may be eligible for citizenship, if they have a substantial investment in St. Kitts or Nevis.

St. Kitts and Nevis Investment Requirements

There are two types of the qualifying investments: a cash donation to the Sugar Industry Diversification Foundation (SIDF option) and investment in real estate.

SIDF contribution must be between US$ 200,000 to US$ 400,000, depending on the number of members of the family applying for citizenship. This includes all registration and due diligence fees, except legal fees of the promoting agent.

Win the Greencard Lottery and Then Get Citizenship - If I'm a Citizen Why Would I Get Deported?

If you win in the Greencard Lottery, you are legally permitted to reside in the United States. Many residents from foreign countries apply for citizenship after a few years of residency.

The US Citizenship and Immigration Service will conduct a criminal check on every person who applies for citizenship. If you have a criminal record, you may face denial of citizenship or have your citizenship taken away if the service finds out a crime was committed after a citizenship is given.

If I'm a citizen why would I be deported? Crimes that cause the loss of citizenship

Various crimes constitute denial of citizenship or revocation of it. If the crime is serious, you can be deported. Every applicant must complete the section on the form for disclosing any crimes committed in the past that led to conviction or were removed from your record.

• If you fail to disclose the required criminal information, the USCIS will reject your application and not grant citizenship. Your citizenship will be removed if the service finds at a later date that crimes were committed in the past. If an applicant has declared a criminal conviction or an arrest, documents related to the arrest, court decision and the punishment must be supplied to the authority.

Birthright Citizenship - A Matter of Jurisdiction

It may be summer, but I have a pop-quiz for you. Who said, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" Right. Patrick Henry. How about this one, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" I'm sure you know that Ronald Reagan made that challenge. Finally, who recently said, "Being an American is not a matter of blood or birth. It's a matter of faith." That statement was made by Barack Obama during a speech about immigration reform.

When it comes to citizenship and who can be an American, is it a matter of faith, as the President stated? Or is it more accurate to say that American citizenship is a matter of settled law? The U.S. Constitution states in Article 1, Section 8, that Congress (the lawmaking branch of the three branches of government) has the authority to make laws governing citizenship. At the time the Constitution was written, the Framers were just coming to terms with all the details of forming a new nation. They all had been Englishmen before the Revolution, but now, they were Americans. The Founders had to settle the question of whom else could become an American.

Commentators and pundits argue that any child born on American soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status, should be granted American citizenship as a right of birth, or "birthright citizenship." The judicial branch in what are the three branches of government, have gone along with this, establishing a precedent for continued birthright citizenship. It is clear that birthright citizenship is an attractive benefit, as so many illegal alien mothers cross America's borders just to check in to an American hospital in time to give birth. These newborn babies are given automatic citizenship, and are an "anchor" for the family's future in the United States.

The Civil War was fought, in part, over the great question of slavery. Slaves were not considered fully human by many of their captors, let alone American citizens. After the slaves' emancipation, there were some who would not recognize their citizenship, nor the citizenship of their offspring. This was an argument that had to be settled. The question of who was entitled to American citizenship was addressed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

New Citizenship Rules for Canadians

As of April 17, 2009 new citizenship rules have been put in place. This was done to correct some problems that were found in the previous citizenship rules. The new rules are designed to make the citizenship rules easier to understand and enforce. The three main changes in the Canadian citizenship rules are:

Restoring or granting Canadian citizenship to citizens who either never had citizenship or had lost their citizenship due to previous citizenship laws.

The new rules limit Canadian citizenship to the first generation of children born to Canadian parents outside the boundaries of Canada.

It allows people who were adopted outside of Canada, by Canadian parents between the dates of January 1, 1947 and February 14, 1977 to file an application of citizenship without having to go through an immigration process.

The previous citizenship rules were more confusing and led to many people being unsure of their citizenship standing in Canada. Before the new rules went into effect, people living outside of Canada who were born to Canadian parents, or had Canadian grandparents had to submit an application to retain or keep their Canadian citizenship, to live in Canada for one year, or to prove that they had a solid connection to Canada before their 28th birthday. This led to confusion because many of these people did not realize that they had Canadian citizenship in the first place.

The Concept of Dual Citizenship

Dual citizenship simply means a person is a citizen of two countries at the same time. Every country has its own laws for citizenship based on its own policy. Persons may acquire dual nationality by operation of different laws in countries rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to US citizen parents can become both a US citizen and a citizen of the country of birth.

As a US citizen, you can acquire foreign citizenship through marriage, or if you are naturalized as a US citizen, you may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth. The immigration law in US does not mention dual citizenship or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Additionally, if you are automatically granted another citizenship, you do not risk losing your US citizenship. However, if you acquire a foreign citizenship by applying for it, you may lose your US citizenship. In order to lose/renounce your US citizenship, per the law, you have to apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily with the intention to give up US citizenship.

The US government recognizes that the concept of dual citizenship does exist but does not encourage it as a policy due to the problems that may rise. Claims of other countries on dual citizenship may conflict with US law. It may also limit US government efforts to assist citizens abroad. Although a naturalizing citizen has to undertake an oath renouncing previous allegiances to other countries, the oath has never been enforced for the actual termination of original citizenship.

State Citizenship Is Alive And Well

Did the 14th Amendment do away with State Citizenship?

"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, p. 591 [1979].

The answer is absolutely not.

In fact the leading and controlling case on State Citizenship and United States Citizenship is the Supreme Court case, The Slaughter-House Cases (16 Wallace 36: 21 L.Ed. 394 [1873]). In this case, the Supreme Court distinguishes between State Citizenship and United States Citizenship.

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics of the individual." The Slaughter-House Cases: 83 U.S. 36, 74.

"The importance of the case can hardly be overestimated. By distinguishing between state citizenship and national citizenship and by emphasizing that the rights and privileges of federal citizenship do not include the protection of ordinary civil liberties such as freedom of speech and press, religion, etc., but only the privileges which one enjoys by virtue of his federal citizenship, the Court averted, for the time being at least, the revolution in our constitutional system apparently intended by the framers of the amendment and reserved to the states the responsibility for protecting civil rights generally." Cases In Constitutional Law by Robert F. Cushman, 5th Edition, pp. 250-251 (College Law Textbook) [1979].

"Citizenship is elaborated in two privileges and immunities clauses of the United States Constitution. . . . The Slaughter-House Cases [1873] 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, emphasized the distinct character of federal and state citizenship. Slaughter-House held that privileges and immunities conferred by state citizenship were outside federal reach through the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . Federal citizenship was seen as including only such things as interstate travel and voting. While subsequent decisions have extended the meaning of citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment, Slaughter-House is still controlling in that it precludes use of privileges and immunities language in protecting citizens by federal authority." Constitutional Law Deskbook - Individual Rights, by Chandler, Enslen, Renstrom; Second Edition, p. 634 (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, 1993).

How the 2009 Citizenship Law Applies to Adopted Children

The Canadian government has passed a new citizenship law that resolves a variety of issues about Canadian citizenship (Bill C-37). Buried in that law is a provision that has passed unnoticed, until now, which puts limitations on the Canadian citizenship rights of some internationally adopted children. Recent articles in the National Post, the Globe & Mail and the Ottawa Citizen have brought these provisions to the attention of the adoption community.

Although this new law will come into effect on April 17, 2009, I hope it is not too late for adopting parents to express their views (read Comments from adopting parents so far. Also read Complex Citizenship Laws Anger Adopting Parents). The provisions of the new law are complex, so I have set out a series of questions and answers at the end of this article, which I hope will clarify the finer points of the new rules.

A good way to begin understanding the issues is to read the newspaper articles "Critics Fear Two-Tier Citizenship" and "Citizenship Changes Could Create Inferior Citizens". For the perspective of Robin Hilborn of Family Helper, see "Canadian law denies citizenship to children of foreign adoptees"

Essentially the legislation provides that the children of some internationally adopted children will not have a right to Canadian citizenship. In practice, this is likely to affect only a small proportion of all adopted children. What upsets adopting parents, however, is the notion that their children will have a lesser class of citizenship. In effect, the children are being discriminated against. Adopting parents do not want to feel that their children are second-class citizens.

Adopting parents in Canada are losing their tolerance for being discriminated against. Resentment at the inherent discrimination against adopting families built into the EI legislation has been simmering for the past decade (for a detailed description of the discrimination which adopting parents feel about this subject, see our earlier Spotlight, "Adoption in the Workplace"). Now a new law that discriminates against their children is going to have a galvanizing effect on the adoption community.