More recently (August 2021), the option of German citizenship has been extended to descendants of people who were deprived German citizenship due to gender discrimination in the law that was in effect at the time. For example, until 1975, the children of married parents would only be German if the father was German.
Furthermore, if your ancestors left Germany after 1904 and had children in the United States before naturalizing as American citizens, you may be already a German citizen even without knowing it.
The UK introduced laws last year that are also on the theme of gender discrimination and righting the consequence of deprivation of rights in previous generations [0]. It was only about 5 years ago that rights afforded by matrilineal descent were brought in line with patrilineal descent.
Israel’s Law of Return stills favor matrilineal descent (because of halakhic law) even though it is partially open to patrilineal descent now. Also you lose the Law of Return even if you have 100% Jewish ancestry but officially convert to a different religion.
It’s to be expected somewhat, but the way Israel mixes religion and policy creates a ton of complexity. Just look up how marriages work.
The Law of Return does not distinguish patrilineal from matrilineal descent. Indeed, most such immigrants are not Jewish by religious law, even if ethnically they have that connection.
My understanding of the Law of Return is that matrilineally you can prove Jewishness by going arbitrarily far back on the female line, but that patrilineally (or otherwise not fully matrilineally) you can only go back as far as your grandparents.
That’s consistent with it probably not affecting most people + still allowing for people who do not meet the traditional religious criteria to exercise the Law of Return, but not the same as the treatments being the same.
According to my understanding, if for example my great grandfather was Jewish, but married to a Catholic, and raised their son (my grandfather) as a Catholic, who then was for all intents and purposes a fully practicing Catholic thus raising my parent the same way, I wouldn’t be eligible for the law of return. But if I could show my mother’s mother’s mother’s … mother was Jewish I would be eligible, even if this is more than 2 generations.
For most people raised Jewish I doubt it matters much but it does change things a lot for people of mixed Jewish ancestry whose parents/grandparents were not practicing. Which is a pretty decent number of people in the US and former Soviet Union
The most famous example is Winston Churchill, whose mother was American, but under the laws of the time US nationality could only be passed on by the father.
Ah, so pre-WW2 then... And for the most time part of the German Empire / Prussia. A nationish state that doesn't exist anymore for more than 100 years. And then it was conquered by the USSR during WW2, which was started by whom again?
Anyway, what does this have to do with Russias invasion of Ukraine again?
Can you explain the part about being a citizen if you have ancestors after 1904? What other criteria are there?
From some quick searching I don’t see this mentioned explicitly anywhere. Is the argument that your great grandparent’s (immigrant from Germany in let’s say 1901) children, per the current naturalization rules, were a citizen, and thus your grandparent, thus parent, and thus you? Since the citizenship requirements don’t mention it, is this something that would actually hold up?
> being a citizen if you have ancestors after 1904?
Prior to a 1914 change in the nationality law, a German citizen lost citizenship if they lived outside of Germany for more than 10 years and didn't file to retain citizenship. The general case is thus "after 1904."
Other common criteria are that the chain of citizenship is unbroken, that no parent naturalized elsewhere (also a loss of citizenship without permission to retain) prior to the child being born and no voluntary military service (with some exceptions for EU and NATO depending on year).
I see, that explains why I kept seeing 1914 when researching. I just thought OP might have made a typo in the year
I knew one of my great grandparents was born in Germany, but after some digging it turns out they emigrated as a toddler well before the cutoff, so no EU passport for me. I was surprised to learn that their family came over in multiple ships in the span of a few years. And also at how many dark patterns genealogy websites use to try to get you to pay!
Pro tip for anybody also interested: there are free sites for genealogy although their SEO is often poor, and they use clunky interfaces from like 15 years ago. Often operated by governments and perfectly capable of describing in words how to manually do a join, but incapable of automatically doing a join.
I found aad.archives.gov useful for Ellis Island records - if you search the manifest id from a record you can see the ship name, source, and year. And you can filter by last name + manifest id if you find what seems like partial data (the person you think is missing may have had their name recorded differently). There is some German emigration data also available but as you might expect it’s pretty patchy - nonetheless I was still able to find my great grandparent in their polity’s emigrant records.
I hope Austria will make a similar change. Children born before 1983 only acquired citizenship if their father was Austrian or they were born out of wedlock to a single mother. When they changed the law in 1983 it was not made retroactive - so many half Austrian children are left with no legal connection to the country.
are you sure? a friend of mine born in 1973 has both austrian and german citizenships. which in itself is a fluke because neither country recognises dual citizenships. but with such a law in effect it should not have been possible to get the mothers citizenship from either country.
Yes, I'm sure. Is is father or mother Austrian? There was a period in 2014 wherein children affected by this law were allowed to apply for Austrian citizenship - perhaps he took advantage of that. There has also been a recent change for descendants of holocaust survivors. I'm not sure about the german side of the equation.
i just learned that in 1983 when the law was changed, austrian mothers were offered to apply for austrian citizenship for their children born earlier. so if it wasn't made permanently retroactive, there was at least a time window to apply which is likely what my friend was able to take advantage of.
i don't know which parent is austrian.
my friend has both citizenships at least since their youth in the 80s. so whatever allowed that to happen must have been something in effect then. maybe a different temporary exception on either the german or austrian side.
I'm a little bit in the opposite camp. I live in the UK and have lived here for a total of more than 10 years in the last 20, but I have a EU passport. I would not say that I feel that I'm British, but I have strong ties with the country and plan to keep it my home for a good chunk of my future (though not my whole future necessarily).
I believe I qualify for British Citizenship, and I'm currently debating with myself whether to apply. It's kinda a no-brainer from a practical point of view - it will allow me to come and go as I please, but even though I would not lose my EU citizenship in the process, it has prompted some feelings in my where I have come to consider where I belong and what exactly I feel.
I think Citizenship is, whether you like it or not, one of those things that are really important for one's self understanding. Like the author, I feel European first and foremost I think, and Brexit and the way it was carried was cataclysmic for that identity if you live in that country.
As somebody who's been through a similar-but-different dual citizenship thing: it's just a bit of paper. You're still you, in all your wonderful complexity, and you can feel like any nationality or combination of nationalities you like. That will probably continue developing over time, too. You'll lose nothing by getting a second passport, and by the sounds of things you'll gain plenty.
Everybody should take every opportunity available to them when it comes to this stuff. Don't let others decide for you where you're allowed to make a life for yourself if you can possibly help it.
That only works for people with they right passport in the first place. Because if you have the wrong passport, you might not be able to get a visa for the country you want to go to or your stay in this country is very time-limited.
In case you don't loose your EU citizenship, I think it is really a no-brainer to have both. It's different for, e.g. a Spanish and a French passport as the benefits might marginal. In case of the UK and Brexit, the benefits are really tengible.
Anyone born, or with a grandparent or parent born on the island (meaning Northern Ireland too) has a right to Irish citizenship. So a lot of UK citizens qualify. It normally takes about 6 months to process, but due to demand after Brexit and closing of the relevant office, it was taking about 2.5 years. Only in the last few months does it seem to be back down to about 1 year.
Problem is: if your first passport is German, you are at high risk of losing it and you have to essentially decide which way to go. Germany only allows dual citizenship with EU countries (at time of application).
> but as to the rest of the country: it suddenly felt like a foreign land that I didn’t understand and in which I was not welcome.
That struck me as an odd remark. This sudden change wasn't provoked by a visit to (say) Leeds, where people made her feel unwelcome; it was provoked by a plebiscite whose outcome she disagreed with.
I voted Brexit, knowing that there would be economic costs that would last at least ten years. I also knew that european governments would be angry and hostile; and that the Tories would make a dog's dinner of it. But I still voted Brexit, because for various reasons I think the EU is deeply corrupt.
But I still feel like a european, because I am a european. I feel fellowship with other europeans - provided they also feel like europeans.
When friends ask me about Scotland and Brexit I tell them within our lifetime the Scots will split off a rejoin the EU. There is already a difference in terms of laws, currency and education. Every time Westminster shuts down another attempt the support will grow and this might take decades.
They've probably already put the contract for Hadrian's Wall out for tender :)
The ability to so easily pick up and carry multiple citizenships is something that I do not foresee lasting for long, take advantage of it while it lasts. A passport/citizenship (for most countries) is a free option, it grants a lot of privileges for you and your family and comes at practically zero cost.
> A passport/citizenship (for most countries) is a free option, ... and comes at practically zero cost
Why do you say that? Most countries (unless you can claim some descent from native citizens) require you to have a link with the country, to have spent several years there, to speak the language well, and to be financially secure.
Most countries rules select the people that are eligible for passports/citizenship to those that will benefit the nation.
As in if you are eligible to take citizenship in most cases there is no downside - yes some countries restrict you to having one citizenship or charge global tax on citizens but they are minorities out there.
In most cases there are no obligations from the perspective of the citizen, and in return the benefits are many.
(2) Former German citizens who, between 30 January 1933 and 8 May 1945, were deprived of their citizenship on political, racial or religious grounds and their descendants shall, on application, have their citizenship restored. They shall be deemed never to have been deprived of their citizenship if they have established their domicile in Germany after 8 May 1945 and have not expressed a contrary intention.
"> I find myself imaging what it would be like if my husband and I retire to Germany."
I think in case she has dual citizenship, she still has to pay into German social security. These payments are mandatory and contributions are accrued over a lifetime.
I think The minimum fee is about 150 Euros per month and family (even as an "inactive" citizen).
Maybe she can refuse to pay ("Hey, I've moved back to the UK / never moved to Germany"), but this also means almost? no pension payments later, and she can expect trouble when paying invoices for any German doctor or hospital.
Of course she can live off her wealth (gained in the UK) as a Pensioner in Germany but I think when she never contributed to German Social Security she cannot expect much. In this respect, Bookkeeping by German authorities is very accurate, over decades, to the penny.
Pensions and social security, as wrll as health insurance, have nothing to do with citizenship. The key is emoloyment (or voluntary contributions) when working in Germany. That applies to every EU citizen (usually no working visa required) and people working in Germany with working visas.
Obviously, it is more benfitial to gather pension in a high cost and salary country (e.g. Germany) and retire to a low cost country. No idea how UK pensions compare to German ones.
One health insurance benefit German citizenship gives you, is the option to keep German health insurance, also covering health care abroad, as an expat for up to 5 (?, might be ten) for close to nothing. For some funny reason doing so while based in the US is considerably more expensive than the rest of the world...
This is true. I became a dual German citizen 15 years ago and paid no tax or social security contributions. I only started paying those once I moved to Germany and started working here a few years ago
German doctors and hospitals will cheerfully bill you directly, no insurance necessary. They would be hesitant to schedule you for a very expensive procedure without an insurance card, but I just had surgery to insert and later remove pins to heal a broken finger as a "Selbstzahler" (self-payer), because I'm privately insured. This means that they simply sent me the bills, totaling about 1000 EUR, I paid them out of my checking account, and it's my own problem to get re-imbursed from my insurer. I think they checked my ID to make sure the billing address was legit.
Edited to add: I am merely a permanent resident of Germany, not a dual citizen.
I was a weird edge case, so had to get private: at the time of my residence permit application, I was a resident of a country that did not have compulsory health insurance (pre-ACA USA), married to a German with private insurance, and not yet employed (and no immediate prospects). I had to have German health insurance to get the residence permit, so private it was.
That makes sense. One has to love all those edge cases, right? I always choose to stick with public health care, even if I am elibible for private insurance for years now. There are reasons for that so, not the least some nasty past medical issues public insurers don't care about but private ones would at least increade premiums over.
The fun thing with private insurance so is that you see the invoices and amounts. Always puzzles me when I see those from my Dad...
Private insurance is great if you get it young enough, and without pre existing stuff, and get good conditions concerning premium increases with age.
Private health insurance in Geany is tricky, and since I stick with public I only have limited insight from the few times I looked at private insurance.
So, rule of thumb is that private health insurance gets more expensive with age and previous health issues (everything from injuries, sports, diseases, cancers...). So it is benefitial to get into privatr insurance early, because insurers price premiums over the expected life time value. As a result, the earlier to start paying into it, the lower the premiums down the road are going to be. E.g. some government jobs have defacto private insurance, and no way into public one, and if people do not start contributing during their active service, once they loose state provided coverage (again different from public insurance), premiums sky rocket upon retirement.
Public insurers (private companies offering the legally defined coverage) have to take everyone (some edge case exceptions apply to e.g. artists and the like), cannot adopt premiums based on anything patient related (thry have some leeway based on internal cost to increase premium for everyone of their members by a limited percentage).
Private insurers can more or less do whatever they want, even excluding pre existing conditions in some cases. Sucks if you had, e.g., cancer early in your life.
Are taxes used to subsidize the "public insurers" as defined by your comment?
Otherwise, I do not understand how the risk pool could possibly work. It seems like much of the healthy and young people would buy "private insurers", and the sick and old would be denied, so they would have to go with "public insurers".
But then that would mean the prices would be sky high for public insurance compared to private insurance?
One wrinkle: you have to be on public insurance if you're employed and making less than about 60k EUR/year (adjusts with inflation, more or less) AND (starting a few years ago) have been working less than three or four years. You get an exemption to the earnings rule if you're part time during the early parental years.
So that's how they make sure that most of the healthy, young people are in the public insurance system for at least a few years.
Sounds like people who earn more money can opt into a less costly risk pool, and people who earn less are forced into a more costly risk pool?
And because this was becoming too lopsided, they sacrificed the newest generation of higher income workers by requiring they be in the costlier risk pool for a few years?
Not at all. The private insurers limit the risk pool by excluding stuff, or denying people. The public risk pool is the vast majority of the 80 million Germans. And the whole health care system is basically built around this system. Nothing is becoming lopsided, and nobody is sacrificed, because the public coverage is really good.
EDIT: Regarding public coverage, the only supplemental insurances that are actually really useful are extended pay beyond the legal limit of 6 weeks per diagnosis and additional dental coverage. Other than that, I cannot imagine a worse case than cancer, and I got chief surgeon treatment 2 weeks after the diagnosis while being in under public insurance. So the system works just fine, even in some of the worst imaginable cases.
After a certain age you can't any longer switch from private to public insurance (exceptions exist). This is meant to prevent exactly such cases where you'd use cheap private insurance when young and healthy, and cheap public insurance at old age.
Taxes are not used to subsidize the public insurers. The risk pool is, as pointed out in the sister comment, that basically the majority of Germans are in the public model.
> even excluding pre existing conditions in some cases.
I think it most cases. I’ve had multiple private insurance companies reject me for minor pre existing conditions (some pills for anxiety/depression, minor surgery on my wrist etc). The brokers said I must have perfect health for 5 years and then reapply.
In my case private insurance would be significantly less than the public insurance I have now
This is less of a problem for UK citizens, since the statepension is pretty bad. Most people Here pit money in a pensionfund, e.g for me my pension is about 90% from my pension fund and the state part is just an extra(not that I expect i will ever receive it).
I'd assume she'd still receive her UK pension, right? Depending on the exchange rate and possible tax implications it may end up being less than it would be back in the UK, but having contributed to a pension scheme she'll still presumably get something back, just not from the German system.
It is not directly linked. Both are linked to employment (sozialversicherungspflichtig, what atrue German word) which gives you health insurance, social security, unemployment and retirement. Lower salary ranges give you health insurance, but sometimes not unemployment or social security (not sure about the latter without looking it up), while freelancing or being a GM at a company (your own or someone elses) can come without retirement or unemoloyment benefits. Except some extreme edge cases, there is no way to be not health insured in Germany. There are multiple ways to not have unemployment, social security or retirement benefits. The prudent path here is to either contribute voluntarily (expensive with the exception of unemployment) or pick privtar alternatives. None of that so is connected to citizenship so.
In a way it feels like the writer despises the UK and thinks that the NHS will implode. Not saying that it can't happen but so can the German economy or any other nation for that matter. The UK gave her family shelter when the fatherland was busy murdering millions of Jews. I think it's important not to forget history, especially one's family's.
She said in 2017:
> If the NHS implodes or the country sinks into a Brexit-induced quagmire – poorer, more fractured and less influential – we now have the option of moving sooner than that.
This is a precise description of what happened in the UK since then.
I shouldn’t have to say that, but she doesn’t owe anything to anybody and she is free to criticise the UK (and being quite spot on), whatever happened to her family 100 years ago.
Update: The NHS is actually imploding. It's a mixture of lack of money, lack of foreign (EU) workers, a wave of early retirement because of Covid and a huge increase in sick leave also mainly because of Covid.
Waiting an hour and a half for an ambulance when you have a stroke or heart attack is the sort of thing that has long term consequences for your recovery, even if you don't die of it immediately.
The German health system is also imploding. It was systematically dismantled by the previous governments in the past 15 years and then came COVID, during which nothing was done to improve the situation. Scores of burnt out health workers have left since 2020.
I really didn't get this feeling. The feeling I got is that the writer's British identity is intertwined with their European identity, and no longer feels whole after the referendum. A lot of people feel similarly.
> The UK gave her family shelter when the fatherland was busy murdering millions of Jews.
Reluctantly, and it's not clear the same courtesy would be extended today given the anti-asylum rhetoric. The history of Allied countries accepting Jewish refugees early - before it was too late - is .. patchy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
And 80 years on it's the UK where the corrupt rulers are getting worse day by day and racist rhetoric is on the increase, even from their own home secretary (and previous home secretaries were busy doing harm to the Windrush generation). There's history, and there's the present, and future trajectory..
> In a way it feels like the writer despises the UK
It's the Guardian, that is their schtick. Orwell summed up this attitude well in England Your England[1]:
> In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a poor box.
As someone who's bought and read the Graun more times in the past quarter of a century than most people have had hot dinners, I feel vindicated by those downvotes, they feel a lot like the response most Graun readers would give. What kind of response do you think the people Orwell described would give?
Yeah, my wife applied for and got Irish citizenship after the Brexit referendum on account of having Irish grandparents.
She now retains the right to freely work and travel in the EU, whilst I have now lost that right. Our children will automatically get it though, so thanks Ireland!
If you accompany her, you gain most of the key rights based on her rights. (You lose them if she leaves the country, or the relationship ends, unless you can maintain the rights based on one or more of the children.)
> If you have grounds for residence as a family member to a (non-Danish) EU citizen living in Denmark who has independent grounds for residence in Denmark under EU rules, and you no longer meet one or more of the conditions, your grounds for residence will normally be terminated. This would be the case, for example, if you are divorced from the sponsor, if the sponsor has left Denmark or if the sponsor no longer meets the conditions for his or her grounds for residence.
Given the weasel words in the following sections, I assume they do follow the EU rules when it comes to it, but that summary is deceptive.
Yeah, the main thing is that we'd both have to be resident in Ireland for several years. Which isn't something either of us want to do.
I mean, to be fair, it's not reasonable for me (British citizen) to expect to be able to just have the citizenship of an EU country. I'm just jealous and angry that she (and our hypothetical children) now have a bunch of rights that others took away from me.
Citizenship takes time and effort, but nothing prevents you both from moving to Germany to work, or Spain to retire. Next week, if you want to.
I live in Denmark, and here, upon arrival your wife would fill in a 2-ish-page online form [1] and present a job contract (or bank statement with a decent balance, university letter for studies etc -- the standard moving-in-the-EU rules which Britain never bothered to enforce).
You would show her job contract, plus your marriage certificate, and have fingerprints taken.
The process would be similar in other EU countries, but may well involve fewer online forms and more bits of paper.
You gain these rights via your wife under EU family mobility law.
Your children won’t automatically gain these rights unless they are born on the island of Ireland. It’s important at to register their births on the FBR.
Just for the benefit of others reading: you can get on the FBR[1] if a grandparent was born on the island of Ireland. If you get on the FBR before your kids are born, they can get on it too, and their kids can get on it and so on. If you have a right to citizenship through a grandparent and you don't get on the FBR before your kids are born, they cannot get on it.
[1]FBR = Foreign Births Registry. If you have a right to citizenship, you become a citizen once you are in the registry.
Since this article was published, it is no longer straightforward to have dual-nationality between Germany and a non-EU country - the UK in this context. They're considering it, but right now, you would need to give up your passport in order to gain a German one.
That would still be the same, this is the "right of return" rules which is one of the exceptions to our "no dual citizenship" rules.
What’s supposed to be changed soon is the normal way, like my South African wife who could get citizenship due to being married to me. Currently, she’d have to give up her SA citizenship to get the German one.
In those cases, if SA doesn't care, is to renounce the SA citizenship in front of German authorities and just get a new SA passport later. A lot of people with German and Turkish passports (also technically not allowed) do so. Trick is to not carry both at the same time. Or to apply for security clearances.
Edit: There are countries in which you cannot loose citizenship, Afghanistan comes to mind as of a couple of years ago.
Yes, it's mostly fine doing that. The German law is incredibly stupid in the context of international law anyway.
The issue is that citizenship is stricly a country own prerogative outside of the agreement not to make people stateless. So Germany is free to tell you they won't give you the German nationality if you don't renounce your other ones and is free to strip you of your German nationality if they find you have another one.
Meanwhile, the other country can still consider you a citizen if it wants to. That's its sovereign right and it doesn't have to agree to you asking not to be considered one.
I think we’ll be fine just waiting ;) And also, SA is also a bit weird about dual citizenship, you have to ask for permission first before getting another, and can’t even start the process of getting another before getting permission, which takes about a year. And apparently they almost never deny permission… Yet if you get another without asking them, you instantly lose your SA one.
There are still exceptions, like if the original country considers treason to give up on the nationality with correponding high penalties, it used to be so that Germany would allow to keep the original nationality in such cases.
The author feels dual citizenship gave her options. Another option is to be a permanent expat without seeking local citizenship. An upside to that is that you may still be able to leave the country if it goes to war and locks in its own citizens (like what happened to Ukrainian men when Ukraine was invaded). And if your country of citizenship tries to lock down its citizens, you're already not there and you would probably have to commit a serious crime to be extradited.
Most people can only enter foreign countries if they get a time-limited visa. And sometimes you cannot get another visa without being out of the country for a longer time.
I'm trying to do the opposite. Unfortunately you lose the German one if applying for another country's. Unless its a EU country. Guess which country is no longer in the EU...
There is apparently a way around it but that may require lawyers
Would be interesting to hear what that way is. From memory they only allow it if you are being discriminated against (voting is explicitly excluded), but maybe I missed something. Right now the UK seems to have left all the doors open for indefinite-leave-to-remainers, including public servant positions.
This article understates the context of this “right of return”—-that the German state in the 1940s systematically murdered over 6 million Jews. Today’s Germans are not guilty of this crime, but it is an oddly missing fact from this article—-especially in the context of fleeing Brexit.
I say this as someone who has exercised my right of return to Austria.
This is like the holocaust equivalent of trying to explain someone else’s joke. It’s not understated, everybody else got it.
If I had to point out what’s understated or lost by many, the author is not comparing this to the holocaust (obviously Brexit is nowhere on the same level). They’re drawing comparison to one of the central narratives of the Jewish Diaspora where Jews periodically have to relocate to get away from declining or unfavorable regimes. But they also recognize that since they were secular and seemingly fully assimilated as a Brit, it’s a little different (which is also a common facet of the Diaspora especially in secular Western countries)
The audience for the article is mostly not comprised of Germans exercising their right of return, so adding context would benefit the majority of readers.
You dont have to be feel guilty about it. I can understand that non - Western countries dont teach Western (or German) history.
In Germany we didnt talk about India as part of the British empire. My scarce knowledge is based on talks with an Indian friend and Wikipedia.
Also there are many many genocides unfortunately.
Honestly, I find both of these anecdotes a little mind-boggling, although it may also be a function of my attending school relatively recently. The vast majority of history lessons in my secondary/high school (IB curriculum) were about overseas regions, including comparative studies of single-party states in the "West" and the "East," colonialism, etc.
You see you have a different goal of education.
I for example value more regional history as it is something I can connect to. Also high school is superficial and global topics are superficial as well.
IB meaning International Baccalaureate? That might explain a more international outlook.
The average German history curriculum tends to cover topics with a German-specific lens. E.g. comparison of single-party regimes will likely involve the NSDAP and SED, colonialism may feature British India in a sidebar but mostly talk about German colonies in Africa, the Berlin Conference, Herero genocide etc. (German New Guinea and the other Pacific colonies seem to get less attention for some reason.)
The genocides are, why a country splitting to release a ethnic group, is something to celebrate. Less chance of that to happen. Pakistan/India seperation comes to mind. Its better to seperate halfway peacefully, then stay together and then get the great murdering during some more despotic moments in history. Can still form something like the european union, to not be bullied by the great bullies.
Its of course, orthogonal to multi culturalism as a ideology, but all the melting pots without a constant economic flame, imploded into civil war (libannon, jugoslavia) or turned into brutal centralist empires (russia, etc.).
> non - Western countries dont teach Western (or German) history
In general they do because history is human history, not just some country's history, and it would pretty appalling to gloss over genocides of that magnitude.
It's not a toy passport. The right to live and work in the EU is pretty valuable for Britons who have lost it due to Brexit. Russian oligarchs pay millions each for Malta's golden passport wheeze, and Roman Abramovich suborned a corrupt Portuguese Rabbi to be declared eligible for reinstatement of Portuguese citizenship for the descendants of Jews expelled in 1492, thus making an end-run around EU sanctions imposed on him.
And yes, EU passports are very beneficial. And the German one ranks usually under the top three most "powerful" passpoets in world, measured in the number of countries one can travel to without visa requirements. A second EU passport would be somewhat of a "toy" so, but might still make certain things easier in said country.
There is currently a legislation underway to reform German citizenship law, the details of which are still somewhat open. Among other things, it should make dual citizenship much easier for British or US-American citizens and many others.
Some historical background: In 2002, the then coalition of Social Democrates (SPD) and the Green Party, at the special insistence of the latter, attempted to pass a new immigration law. The law passed the parliament (Bundestag), but also required the approval of the German states represented by the Bundesrat. At the meeting of 22 March 2002, the state of Brandenburg, which had 4 (deciding) votes, voted in such a way that it was unclear whether the criterion that a state's votes must be cast uniformly was met.[1] The German Constitutional Court ruled on 18. December 2002 that the votes were not cast uniformly (two judges opposed that decision) and none of it should be counted as a Yes, thus the law did not pass.[2]
In subsequent years, all attempts to generally[3] ease dual citizenship were blocked by the Conservatives (CDU/CSU). However, the 26 September 2021 elections have resulted in a colation without the Conservatives at the federal level and the situation in the states is so diverse that chances are high that a law that extents dual citizenship might be passed this time.
The debates about citizenship and the inherent feelings that they provoke are an outstanding example of how artificial and unintuituve the concepts of nations and borders are.
Until we're no longer bound to the availability of physical resources, we need some way to manage it. Citizenship addresses that, even if it doesn't do that perfectly.
There will always be nations and borders. The alternative is the entire planet being a nation, and I have a feeling that would break down pretty fast. It would also be terrifying. Imagine being a whistleblower against the world government, and you have no jurisdiction to run to for amnesty.
This article appears to have been written by a senior reporter for the Guardian in a case of journalists-reporting-on-journalists. Somehow, that seems like it should be an interesting factor although it is a struggle to pick out why that is.
Also if I were in Europe, I would be looking at contingency plans that involved alternative continents. The combined actions of the US and Russia have probably turned Ukraine into the next Afghanistan. I'm not sure what the implications of that will be for the rest of the EU, but that level of destruction, the rearmament of Poland and the concerning energy situation overall (the last decade more than the last year) are inauspicious.
You mean a conflict where the imperial power is bogged down by endless partisan warfare until it retreats?
No, this level of war is not something that Russia can sustain for a long time. We're probably going to see it implode, again. The last implosion pushed the boundary of "free Europe" from the Berlin Wall up to the Baltic states and the Balkans, leaving it somewhere ambiguous in the Caucasus. I guess it will end up going further east eventually.
I've thought the same recently - The vast majority of Ukrainians don't want to be part of Russia. Even if Russia took control of the country - it would become unmanageable, even a few resistance fighters can do far more today than was possible in the second world war. There would be a stream of Russian soldiers going back in body bags and likely atrocities that would strengthen and broaden the sanctions.
> There would be a stream of Russian soldiers going back in body bags and likely atrocities that would strengthen and broaden the sanctions.
We're already past both those points - estimates are tricky but it seems likely that over 100,000 have already been killed and the Ukranians are already excavating mass graves in retaken areas. I don't think there's much headroom to increase sanctions? What's left unsanctioned?
(by comparison, I see figures for the US lost about 60,000 KIA in Vietnam and 7,000 in Iraq, across the whole duration of those wars)
Let's just say it the way it is: russia is attacking Ukraine, a free nation. Russia is committing atrocities and war crimes against Ukranian people. When russia stops fighting and leaves Ukraine, the war ends. That is all there is to it.
> Well, yeah but they have nuclear weapons so that limits the amount the West can do to help.
It doesn't limit it, it makes it risky. How big of a risk is questionable and depends on wether you think Russia will risk MAD over Ukraine which personally I think is ridiculous. I don't think the Russian leadership have deluded themselves into thinking that they are in the right - they are doing this because they think they can.
If the west had the balls to send actual support from day one then Russia might have pulled out quite soon. Instead it seems NATO wants to use Ukraine to wear down Russia. Good for NATO perhaps but I'm not entirely convinced this drip feed of weapons is actually helping Ukrainians - their losses aren't publicised but they are definitely not small.
Even if one third of Russias nuclear weapons work (2k out of 6k), its far more than enough to destroy the US and Europe. The counterstrike would obliterate Russia. Eighty percent of the rest of the world would starve (all the way to death starvation) in the aftermath.
When I read this, I wondered 'how do wars usually end?' and went to look up recent conflicts [0]. That list makes quite depressing reading; the only thing especially interesting about Ukraine is that the world's top two nuclear powers are locked conflict.
The length of the list defeated me. That being said, I think there are other ways that this war could end. At this point it seems unlikely that the Russians will leave.
The main impact to most people living in Europe has been the higher cost of living which is also the case in the just about any alternative continent/country you can think of.
South America is not more expensive and there isn't really anything there for anyone. Except for the US meddling in politics, but that's hard to escape.
The source of all those problems is Russia alone, not some "combined actions of the US and Russia". When Russia stops being a problem, those issues are non-issues again.
Comparing Ukraine to Afghanistan isn't fair to either.
Lumping the actions of the US and Russia together (the US up front) is more than a little bit strange, it is the actions of Russia that have caused this war and that continue to prolong it, without the US the Russian army would by now have overrun a substantial part of Ukraine, possibly all of it.
Afghanistan has been an ethnically and culturally divided country long before the invasions, Ukraine hasn't. It's highly unlikely that Ukraine will have a civil war when Russia is pushed back. Ukraine isn't going to become a theocracy running on ancient ideas.
Not sure what ethnic divisions have anything to do with this though? You could argue the same for the russian minority in Ukraine, but again that argument would be weird. Having internal divisions does not justify an external invasion at all.
> Having internal divisions does not justify an external invasion at all.
Of course not. But comparing the Balkan to Norway doesn't really help you a lot, because they're very different. "Ukraine will become the next Afghanistan" is nonsense. Who are the warring tribes that will wage a civil war in Ukraine? What ethnic groups will vie for control of the country? Who are the Taliban? Which neighbor that isn't involved in the invasion will afterwards stoke the flames and support their ethnic group with training and weapons?
That assertion was simply nonsense. When Russia stops the invasion, Ukraine will not sink into civil war because they're not like Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a majority minority country that never really had a modern-ish republic and only knows oppression of other ethnic groups. The largest ethnic group are the Pashtuns ("Not all Pashtuns are Taliban but all Taliban are Pashtun", I know, I know, they now have fighters from some other Muslim countries, but it's still generally true), but they don't even make up 50% of the population. Compare that with Ukraine where Ukrainians make up almost 80% with a single sizable minority: Russians. And the Russians have mostly not been traditionally living in Ukraine, but have been settled there in the last century to increase Russia's control during the previous Russian imperial project, the Soviet Union.
The two countries are not alike. "But they were both invaded by the Russians" isn't enough to be comparable beyond the immediate invasion: they're both supported by the US in response, they're both paying dearly for Russian imperial aggression.
But that's where the similarities end, we will be seeing neither civil war nor a theocracy in Ukraine. And to suggest otherwise is silly at best and Russian propaganda at worst.
Excuse me. The are the actions of Russia, not the USA. The USA, and other Western nations, are providing support to a country that wants to defend itself from an aggressor.
In 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, the UK and France did nothing to help. Let's not make the same mistake again.
No there is some truth in this statement. Since 1990 the US has started between 3 and 6 (depending how you count) illegal foreign interventions while talking a big game about a "rules based international order". Understandable how russians who are deeply cynical anyway would see through those slogans and realize that might still makes right.
Now I'm not defending anything Russia is doing, but if this was a US invasion all energy and communications infrastructure would have been destroyed by air strikes and missiles before the 24th of february.
Russia is a lot worse of course, where war crimes are a matter of course and not singular occurrences but I just wanted to give some perspective to the people with no memories. I'd still rather be in the siege of Fallujah than the second siege of Grozny.
No, there is NO truth to the statement. The fact that the USA also does other bad things had no bearing on who's at fault in this war starting or continuing.
The war started because Russia started it and continues because Russia continues it. Russia could stop it tomorrow if they wanted it. Ukraine doesnt have that option.
>>The combined actions of the US and Russia have probably turned Ukraine into the next Afghanistan
First of all - it's actions of Russia and Russia alone.
Second, I think this comment shows zero understanding of the war in Afganistan, because otherwise this comparison would never be made. Tldr: Agfanistan took so long and had such abysmal results because most Afgans didn't actually care about the Taliban, or western democracy, or even Afganistan as a country at all. The presence of western militaries was tolerated at best, despised at worst. Also there are only a handful of cases in modern history where fighting against militia on their own territory has been successful - so in a way what happened in Afganistan isn't surprising(hindsight, eh?).
Ukraine is listerally nothing like this. Ukraine and Ukrainians are fighting a foreign aggressor who is trying to take its land and kill its people by military force - and they have every right to defend themselves.
With the way the war is going, it's (I hope) likely that Russia will be pushed back and out of Ukraine. If that happens, the West will help them rebuild and they will be admitted to EU and maybe even NATO(I'm not so sure about that last one, but we'll see). There is literally no possibility of Afganistan scenario here.
There were Poles fighting on the side of the Germans when my country was attacked in WW2, that doesn't change the fact that Germany attacked Poland and it was German aggression that started WW2.
No one is ignoring that fact - it's just that it's very much an exception, unlike in Afganistan where majority of the country was either clearly on the Taliban side or was at least indifferent to them.
You, and other Russia apologists are ignoring so many major facts that your continuous harping on small and insignificant facts is not going to convince anybody.
And that's before we get into forced conscription, outright blackmail, genocide, the murder of countless civilians and the general state of the part of Ukraine that got 'liberated' by Russia. Spare us the strawmen.
Thank you for the correction, you are correct. This is the drawback of arguing on a forum where you are not using your first language. But I hope that even if that was doubled up it did not stop anybody from understanding what I meant.
> Also if I were in Europe, I would be looking at contingency plans that involved alternative continents.
If the war escalates to that point, then being on a different continent isn't going to help.
> turned Ukraine into the next Afghanistan
Ukraine is Ukraine, and is vastly different from Afghanistan. I can see some slight parallels in the Red army's invasion, but that's about it. There is nothing covert about the fight back, and we are not finding extra government militias to arm.
Yes, the energy situation is a pain in the arse. But it means that finally we are moving away from being held to ransom by Putin try to be a Tzar.
The EU finally has a common enemy at the gates. It can no longer ignore the war monger next door, gradually creeping into its back garden. Russia has basically played it's card, and is a bit stuck now.
Don't get me wrong, its horrific whats going on, putin doing the traditional thing of throwing an entire generation of men at the problem is frankly abhorrent. But there in lies the problem, Russia was already fucked, and it can't sustain that level of population loss.
Please, it is Russia and only Russia committing war crimes and atrocities. It is solely Putin paranoia combined with megalomania responsible for the huge mistake that was invading Ukraine.
The Russian army seems laughably weak and I highly doubt it will (conventionally) ever be remotely dangerous to the rest of Europe. That's why they're putting so many efforts into hybrid warfare and disinformation for so many years.
> The Russian army seems laughably weak and I highly doubt it will (conventionally) ever be remotely dangerous to the rest of Europe.
When I was in high school I used to be worried about the Russians invading the UK, until my neighbour got a Lada. The damn thing was never off my driveway, with various combinations of burnt contact breaker points, cracked distributor cap, burst hoses, sticky choke or throttle, broken valve springs (they were fun, you can do them without taking the head off with a big screwdriver and a bit of rope), and all sorts of other bollocks.
Skip forwards 30-odd years, and the Russians are invading their neighbour in trucks and tanks that can barely go 100km without rotten tyres splitting, track guides failing and throwing the track, gearboxes failing, engines failing, or just plain running out of (poor quality, dirty and watery) diesel.
Folk in the UK opposed to nuclear disarmament are saying "Oh you're doing Putin's job for him, hope you're going to like speaking Russian".
Yeah, now how exactly do you see that happening? Putin's going to ship over a load of emaciated barefooted teenagers with 120-year-old rifles to beg for a drum of diesel and a loan of my tractor? I doubt it...
If it's such a darn weak army, why does my country have to spend $50+ billion of our taxpayer dollars to fund Ukraine's weapon supply? I mean, all of this money is mostly going to Raytheon and the other PMCs.
Dunno what your country is but if you're a European you should be interested in stemming bullying wannabe-dictators. History told us that if we're not firmly fighting this Hitler-Stalin "politics" style (going on now for 10+ years), the problem will be getting bigger and bigger over time. The rule based law of nations exists for a good reason and we have to defend it by all means.
PS: That said, I hate how the "western world" sometimes turns out to be quite dissembling too.
Most european countries are rearming no? And Ukraine is just the start. EU/NATO expansionism & Russia pushing back is going to lead to wars in Belarus/Armenia/Georgia as well.
I'm sorry, what? How can anyone write such absolute nonsense?
Russia attacked Ukraine. Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO, it was explicitly stated and agreed upon years ago. Finland and Norway weren't going to join NATO, because they had zero interest in doing so. But Russia attacked Ukraine, so they applied into NATO, it's a direct consequence of Russia's actions. That's not Russia "pushing back".
Nonsense? Ukraine applied for NATO membership in 2008. NATO didn't turn them down. It was pretty evident back then that this was going to lead to a conflict.
Do I understand why Ukraine wants to join the EU and NATO? Yes, of course! Money&security!
This war was obviously a huge mistake. He's turned Ukrainians who were sympathetic towards Russia against him because they too don't want war on their doorstep.
Ukraine is a sovereign state and can apply and join whichever club it wants to join. More ex-Soviet states joining NATO was based on political decisions of sovereign states and not "the puppetmaster USA pushing to the east", which is Kreml propaganda.
IIRC in the 90s/00s they were talking about Russia joining NATO, too. After 9/11 Putin offered their well-meant help. NATO and Russia were meeting regularly in the past three decades and guess what, Russia left this meeting. Plus, NATO was always very careful arming NATO states near Russia in order to not provoke them. You cannot put this on NATO's card.
Edit: Even after annexation of Crimea, the EU (esp. Germany) tried to calm down Putin by negotiating a piece treaty between Ukraine and Russia and buying even more (cheap) Russian gas.
Here are some reasons why Brexit feels sickening: Having the military drive gasoline trucks around because there are too few drivers to ensure all the gas station get enough gasoline; it is literally sickening if you are ill, wait at the NHS, but don't really get treated because they are understaffed; not having trains that function over Christmas to visit your relatives feels pretty sickening; and
now the biggest strikes in a decade are bringing the country to a grinding halt.
Lastly, economically, the IMF has reminded everyone that the UK is now Europe's sick man. The evidence is clear that Brexit was a huge fail for the UK - although for the wealthy it seems to be a big win, no wonder they endorse it.
I think these are enough reasons to feel sickened by Brexit (unless you are wealthy enough to buy yourself out of all these problems).
Our European citizenship, something many of us were proud of, was taken away against our will after a misleading campaign and a badly run referendum full of lies. Brexit has turned out incredibly badly.
I understand why this was sickening, I felt that too.
I hate to knee jerk but this feels very much like US politics: “they lied to everyone but I’m smart enough to see through it”.
Do you, even for a moment, believe the other side even has a point at all? You must realize the opposition says the exact same thing: “they lied but I’m smart enough to see through it!”
If there is a clear argument for or against Brexit, then it’s not “sickening”. To paint it as such ignores legitimate arguments and as such makes me question the journalistic integrity.
The closer I look at politics, the more I think democracy is driven by emotion rather than rationale.
I'm somewhat perplexed that 3 years after the UK's actual departure and 6.5 since the vote, with 3 Prime Ministers being defenestrated in shame in a row (I don't count Cameron for that but YMMV) — May for 95% disapproval of her Brexit plan, Johnson for being pathologically dishonest and reckless, and Truss once they realised they'd mistaken the wood scraped off the bottom of the barrel for "leadership qualities" — that there's anyone who thinks that specific party has "a point".
(One can of course say that Lab is also bad, especially as they've yet to win despite all that, it doesn't matter)
It's also noteworthy that Farage, who complained of too many people coming into the country during the referendum (the "Breaking Point" posters), is now upset about people leaving the country and the possibility of a brain drain).
I had European Citizenship, it was taken away, I did not want this to happen. This was sickening to many of us. I don't believe there is anything there that is incorrect?
They did lie. They lied often and obviously. Go look up the Brexit bus, see where the money for the NHS is. Maybe look at some of the adverts around Turkey joining the EU. I won't convince you over the internet, but If you go looking, it won't be hard to convince yourself.
The other side may have had a point if Nigel Farage didn't immediately backpedal on the "Let's give 350m a month to the NHS instead of the EU" talking point after the referendum.
1) The main thing of brexit was to "take back control" away from "unelected EU officials" and allow debates by elected officials in Parliament. (british laws for british people)
2) Then the second overtone was stopping or lowering migration, but that was implied.
3) Thirdly was the money aspect, that we would have more money to make public services better.
on point 1, we have more statutory instruments now, which allows secretaries of state to change laws at will, without debate. This is a direct betrayal, and something that could have been avoided, but required consensus (which doesn't exist on either side of the debate). We are still pumping out shit laws that people don't like.
Oh I stand by that comment. It is my opinion, did it offend you? I'm curious why you even felt the need to comment. Not every Briton has the power to do what she did. So the article is essentially just about her. She told all her friends what she was doing beforehand. Now what type of behaviour would you describe this as?
Well I don't know here age but since she had a two year old child in 2017 according to the article, she's probably isn't retired yet. And she's apparently still writing for the Guardian, so definitely not retired.
> Deeply unhappy at the EU referendum result last June, Amelia Hill applied for dual nationality for her and her children – returning to the German roots that her grandparents fled from during the 1930s
Last paragraph:
> We are no longer prisoners of a country whose politicians do not and will not, likely for a generation or more, reflect me in any shape or form. We have options.
I guess having options is the same as returning to your roots.
Furthermore, if your ancestors left Germany after 1904 and had children in the United States before naturalizing as American citizens, you may be already a German citizen even without knowing it.
A reddit dedicated to these topics and more: https://www.reddit.com/r/GermanCitizenship