I can understand citizenship by descent not being transmissible. The privileges of citizenship involve responsibilities for the corresponding government, and indirectly its people. Therefore throwing in one's lot with a country and being a citizen, to my mind, should go together. I do not altogether approve of the 'colonialist' mentality, of settling in a country, not becoming a citizen, but retaining another citizenship as an insurance. If someone wants to be a Canadian citizen, it is appropriate that they have the intention of settling in Canada. In your case, if you do this, having 'returned' to your 'homeland', any children will presumably be citizens by birth - end of problem.

Ceigered, as I said previously, it's complicated. I believe that because you were born after 1983 then you are already a British citizen by descent, and you don't need to apply for it specially, even if your parents didn't register your birth with a consulate. In this case, you just need to apply for a British passport, if you ever want to travel on a British passport. There is no such thing as a dual passport, but a dual citizen can carry two passports, and travel on one or the other, depending on circumstances. Since you are an Australian citizen anyway, I don't expect that you would gain much by getting the UK passport, unless you are interested in living and working in the EU.

Regarding this joke:

Anyway, in Europe we have the joke that in the US a cat that is born in a dog's house is supposed to be a dog (by US law) .

... it seems a little offensive to me, actually. What is it supposed to mean?

Americans are usually shocked to learn that simply being born in most foreign countries isn't enough to make you a citizen of those countries. We equate being born somewhere with belonging to that place, no matter where your parents came from.

I had classmates in school whose parents came from all over the world. My friends and I were mostly born in the US, and I would say that despite our parents' diverse origins, we were all equally American in culture. We had perhaps different foods that we ate at home, we celebrated some different holidays depending on our religions, but everyone celebrated the American national holidays, which are not religious (with the exception of Christmas, which of course not everyone celebrated).

This leads me to the question, ok, let's say that you didn't become a US citizen by being worn here. In that case, what would I be? I am certainly far more American than I am British, and far more American than I am Slovak or Russian (my father's heritage). If I didn't become an American citizen by being born here, what would I be? British? I have the citizenship, but I have only been there twice. Slovak? I've been there once, I don't speak the language, and don't know much about the culture. Russian? Never been there at all, although my grandfather grew up speaking Russian at home. We maintain some cultural foods and traditions in my family, from our various countries of origin, but it would be wrong for me to call myself Slovak or Russian, and although I have dual British citizenship, I honestly would not call myself British either. If a British person met me and spoke with me, they'd say "American". Yes, I prepare my tea properly. I watch a lot of British TV and have a good handle on the culture. But I can't put on any sort of fake British accent in any believable way, and there are a thousand other cultural nuances that mark me out as American, not British. I couldn't pass as British even if I wanted to.

I feel that European citizenship laws are sometimes so based on ethnicity that they miss the point. I read stories about some people of Turkish descent in Switzerland. Their parents were born in Switzerland, their grandparents were born in Switzerland, they were fully Swiss in language and culture, they didn't even speak Turkish. But they had to travel on a Turkish passport because the Swiss community they lived in wouldn't accept their citizenship petition. This doesn't make sense, from the American viewpoint. To go back to the analogy of the joke, it isn't calling a cat a dog; it's calling a dog a dog.

Miland:I can understand citizenship by descent not being transmissible. The privileges of citizenship involve responsibilities for the corresponding government, and indirectly its people. Therefore throwing in one's lot with a country and being a citizen, to my mind, should go together. I do not altogether approve of the 'colonialist' mentality, of settling in a country, not becoming a citizen, but retaining another citizenship as an insurance. If someone wants to be a Canadian citizen, it is appropriate that they have the intention of settling in Canada. In your case, if you do this, having 'returned' to your 'homeland', any children will presumably be citizens by birth - end of problem.

If only it was that easy to become the citizen of the country one settles down in. And if I ever choose the country that i know I will settle down in, I would take the citizenship (if possible). In the mean time, I want to travel "our" planet, learn what i can (languages, culture), and if i so happen to decide to raise a family, while I'm still a nomad of the world, i would like them to remain citizens of Canada, the place where all their relatives live. It's not easy to fly back to Canada to have kids, my parents sure couldn't afford it (they had all 4 of us in Taiwan) and we all live in Canada now except one who lives right on the US-Canada border. Just think of the extra cost to fly back to Canada, keep paying rent on your home(unless u own it, but if your a globe nomad, it's unlikely), and also having to find a place temporarily in Canada to live in, till the child arrives. Its a lot easier said then done, and i agree that maybe people shouldn't have so many citizenship, but for people like myself who only have one, I'd like to keep my Children if i ever have any, with the same nationality as me, (the paper work would be a little less complicated). This new citizenship law dose some good things, but it also overlooks some important details (such as the risk of being born stateless, as of yet, i haven't heard how they deal with that), and It also bases ones loyalty on birthplace, and not on time spent in Canada or cultural ties to Canada.
Perhaps they should just make it a little harder to become a citizen, truthfully, i think 5 years is way to short a time requirement, to make someone a citizen.

anyways, like a said, I'm to young and to far away from even thinking of having kids. But the law comes into affect next month, and i need to try to defend my future while i can. And although I may not be affected my the law right now. My sister who wants to adopt, is affected in that she married an American. Therefore, she would have to sponsor the child and her husband in Canada, for 5 years in order for them to become Canadian.

Ceigered, is one of your parents British? if so you should really look into the laws, Some countries have a law where you have to clam citizenship by a certain age, in order to retain citizenship.

Miland: I do not altogether approve of the 'colonialist' mentality, of settling in a country, not becoming a citizen, but retaining another citizenship as an insurance. If someone wants to be a Canadian citizen, it is appropriate that they have the intention of settling in Canada.

I think most people agree with this. When a person wishes to become a naturalized American citizen, they are required by oath to renounce their allegiance with their former country. This is only fair. However, it seems unfair to require this of an infant. The 14th amendment to our constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." That means changing this law would require another constitutional amendment which is a very difficult thing to do in my country.

It has become an issue in America because pregnant ladies are sneaking into the country illegally to give birth in order for their kids to gain instant citizenship. It has stirred a lot of debate. Opponents of this call them "anchor babies". (Google these two words and you'll instantly see the debate.) The problem is, I can't see any other system being fair to the children, if foreign governments are willing to make them stateless simply by an accident of birth over which their parents might have control, but they do not.

Senlando:
for instance doesn't the US require all its citizens no mater where they live to do income tax every year? or at least that's what i heard. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me if your not a resident of the US. But that is just hear-say, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

These tax laws get complicated, but there is some logic to it. I would estimate that I spend about 1/3 of my year working in countries other than my own. I'm frequently asked (as I was when I entered the UK 3 weeks ago) if I am paid by my American firm and if that will continue during my stay. Obviously, they don't want me seeking employment here and stealing British jobs from Britains.

Should my income, therefore, be taxed in Britain? Obviously not. Besides, I would hate to have to fill out 10 or 12 forms every year in order to pay my taxes. The American forms are so bad, many of us pay SOMEONE ELSE to fill them out for us! I would hate to have to deal with that more than once!

Likewise, if I'm still employed by my American firm and not paying taxes to a foreign state while working in that state, would it be fair for me to spend that time working tax free? It would be nice, but I doubt it would be fair. Especially if I can still claim the benefits of American citizenship and the social protections available to our people which we pay for.

Regarding becoming a naturalized US citizen, it's true that you renounce your allegiance to your former country. However, this does not constitute renunciation of your foreign citizenship, depending on what the other citizenship was. My grandfather could (and did) still travel on his UK passport even after becoming a naturalized US citizen. He travelled a lot for work, and depending on which country he went to, one passport or the other could be more beneficial to him. He did not lose his UK citizenship by taking the US citizenship oath; to lose his UK citizenship, he would have had to go to a UK consulate to officially renounce it, which he never did.

Regarding taxation on foreign income, it's an issue with two sides. In cases like andogigi's, it's clear that he should pay US tax on his foreign income, because this "foreign income" constitutes part of his US-based job. The difficult part of this comes when a US citizen lives and works full-time in a foreign country, whether it's for a foreign company, or for a foreign office of a US company. That person is paying taxes to a foreign country as part of their job, and they are still expected to pay US tax, if their income exceeds a certain threshold (which I believe is $80 000, but don't hold me to it). To my knowledge, no other country requires this, or very few others at least. A UK citizen living and working in the US full-time would not have to pay UK tax on their income.

erinja:...by taking the US citizenship oath...

What does it mean ? Do they must swear something ?
I don't understand : when you become naturalised in USA, do you must leave your precedent nationality ?

Frankouche:

erinja:...by taking the US citizenship oath...

What does it mean ? Do they must swear something ?
I don't understand : when you become naturalised in USA, do you must leave your precedent nationality ?

Yes, new American citizens have to take an oath. It is just a promise to be faithful to our country. There is a ceremony and they have to say the following words...

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

I'm sure most countries do something similar, don't they?

I didn't realize, however, what Erinja had said about being able to retain citizenship. I always just assumed that you had to surrender your former passport. Interesting... Thank you for setting me straight.

Frankouche:

erinja:...by taking the US citizenship oath...

What does it mean ? Do they must swear something ?
I don't understand : when you become naturalized in USA, do you must leave your precedent nationality ?

From what i know about the US, is when you become a citizen, you have to verbally renounce your other citizenship and swear alliance to the US. You don't have to prove that you've officially renounced citizenship, therefore you can still keep your other citizenship. Other countries like Taiwan, require people to prove they've renounced their other citizenship (with documents from the their old citizenship to prove it),before you can obtain citizenship.

For the US, it seems like it changes every administration, sometimes the US frowns on it's citizens being dual-citizens but other times it doesn't really mater.

I believe the US currently allows dual citizenship but doesn't officially recognize it, unlike Canada, and some other countries.

Anyways there's my Canadian knowledge of the US citizenship laws. I may be mistaken of course.

here's a question, to those who know, if one has duel citizenship, can they enter their country on a foreign passport? or do they have to use the passport of that country? And does this depend on countries who recognize duel citizenship, and those who don't?

andogigi:I'm sure most countries do something similar, don't they?

In France, there is a wellcome ceremony of naturalisation (if the administration has the time to do it...), but no oath (maybe because of memories of WWII with very bad guys). Some people, in France, perhaps would say that "why should a naturalised person swear something and not a from-birth person" ?

here's a question, to those who know, if one has duel citizenship, can they enter their country on a foreign passport? or do they have to use the passport of that country? And does this depend on countries who recognize duel citizenship, and those who don't?

It depends...See this page about multicitizenship