When the UK changed their nationality laws on allowing children who were born outside the UK to UK born mothers (husband not a UK citizen) before 1983, I applied for UK citizenship in South African by descent. I have never lived in the UK but I lost my SA citizenship. I challenged DHA about this and argued that the citizenship I got was from a bloodline and not by natrualisation. They told me that any South African who is outside of SA and had children abroad, their children could apply for SA citizenship at anytime. My response was what is the difference between me and them - we are the children of a foreign citizen who had children outside their native country. The UK was correcting their citizenship that discriminated against women passing their citizenship to their children. I got back my SA citizenship without any application to regain it.
M always captivated and intrigued by the engagement from Justice MR Madlanga to counsels....he always displays clarity of thought and expression...6/11/2024
Admittedly i wanted to listen to the constitutional court due to myself personally being able to relate to the subject or matter. Interestingly, legislation should be simple, the fact that the sections application, e.g, where marriage occurs, it should not apply, seemed still needed clarification, reflects that the current provision is not simple. Interestingly, the citizen frustration in making these applications for permission are extensively prolonged, and the power, arbitrary by Minister to not approve, are all very challenging.
At the 11:30 mark, Mr Katz is incorrectly saying that Mr Plaaitjies should not have lost his SA citizenship as he gained UK citizenship by marriage - which is NOT true. No-one gains UK (or US, Australian etc. citizenship) through marriage. What they do get is the right to residence in that country - and can remain a resident of that country - there is no requirement to then take the entirely voluntary act of naturalization several years later, which is how those who marry foreign citizens MAY become foreign citizens -i.e. they do so through naturalization, and not through marriage. i.e. they become ELIGIBLE (eventually) for citizenship through marriage, but the BECOME citizens through naturalization - an entirely voluntary act.
The automatic stripping of a citizen citizenship, for no legitimate reason, for example, criminal behavior (although i dont agree these grounds, unless it was related to like treason - something very serious, or other valid ground, seems beyond excessive...almost military action....
Whether repriciptivity..lol it would make easier for government as they dont need process persons who have lost citizenship and apply to Home Affairs...for home affairs to process these apllications. Further there is no impact on home affairs. If as a citizen comment, if i changed the law i would require citizens to notify home affairs if they assume another citizenship..so home affairs has record. However, notification should be easy process of notification
Turkey allows dual citizenship; it merely requires one to notify the relevant Ministry. Those who apply for another nationality inform the relevant Turkish authority (usually the nearest Turkish embassy or consulate abroad) and provide the original naturalisation certificate, Turkish birth certificate, document attesting to completion of military service (for males), marriage certificate (if applicable) and four photographs. Of course, failure to do this does NOT mean you lose your Turkish citizenship however; Turkey has no automatic loss provision. It seems more directory rather than mandatory. This is another less restrictive alternative which shows why the existing law is unconstitutional.
The stronger argument is non-discrimination, dignity, and lack of due process. 1. There is no judicial or quasi-judicial body which exists to remove the citizenship status of the applicant. Rather, the loss is ex lege, without notice and without any formal hearing. Fundamental rights cannot be lost without due process - here fair and reasonable procedure requires a formal judicial or quasi-judicial hearing **prior** to their citizenship being lost. We need an impartial apolitical decision maker who can assess, in all the circumstances, whether the loss would be in accordance with the principle of proportionality. 2. A naturalised SA citizen can retain their citizenship by birth or descent (if that country accepts dual citizenship). So can someone who is under 18. So can a married person. So why not a South African by birth and descent who acquires a foreign citizenship? So many other exceptions it absurdly swallows the rule. 3. It goes without saying citizenship confers dignity. But s6(1)(a) renders you a foreigner - the same status for criminals, fraudsters, and mercenaries under s6(1)(b), 8(1)(a), and 8(2) of the Citizenship Act. The loss also removes numerous political and economic rights that are linked with both citizenship and dignity (eg the right to vote and to actively participate in public affairs, etc).
@@jamesbrandstetter789 UK allows dual nationality, what he did what a lot of them do is that they do not apply to the SA consulate for permission to take on British citizenship. To retain you SA citizenship you need to apply and wait for the permission letter and then apply for British citizenship. Even on the British application they do ask you if you have permission from your country to apply for UK citizenship. I had to send my permission letter when I applied for UK citizenship. This is a matter of a lot of people just not being bothered to do what they need to do. I say give them a huge fine for their neglectful behaviour.
@@Tinker8531A fine is still a less drastic and less restrictive alternative to wholesale loss of citizenship. I suspect the reason he did not do it (although this occurred back in the early 2000s) was because most do not know about it (you are in the 3% that do) and 76% of countries worldwide do not have such a procedure (dual citizenship is simply legal and viewed innocously in most countries) and one is not sure exactly what one has to say to retain it. Unlike s25 of the German Nationality Act (repealed this year), there is no clear statutory criteria as to what is being balanced or what exactly they are looking for. You have only 4 summary lines on the application form to explain why you want to retain it. The form asks you how you got your second citizenship, but not why. Your fate - and many political rights with it - is at the mercy of the government who may or may not grant the request. Anyways, my due process point stands: a person should lose their citizenship only *after formal judicial or quasi-judicial hearing* and *before a neutral apolitical umpire* - not simply by force of law and it should not depend on a career politican who may or may not like your politics. So stands my antidiscrimination point:
Whether repriciptivity..lol it would make easier for government as they dont need process persons who have lost citizenship and apply to Home Affairs...for home affairs to process these apllications. Further there is no impact on home affairs. If as a citizen comment, if i changed the law i would require citizens to notify home affairs if they assume another citizenship..so home affairs has record. However, notification should be easy process of notification
![ARGENTINA vs. PERÚ [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xtI25ENDDSY/mqdefault.jpg)
When the UK changed their nationality laws on allowing children who were born outside the UK to UK born mothers (husband not a UK citizen) before 1983, I applied for UK citizenship in South African by descent. I have never lived in the UK but I lost my SA citizenship. I challenged DHA about this and argued that the citizenship I got was from a bloodline and not by natrualisation. They told me that any South African who is outside of SA and had children abroad, their children could apply for SA citizenship at anytime. My response was what is the difference between me and them - we are the children of a foreign citizen who had children outside their native country. The UK was correcting their citizenship that discriminated against women passing their citizenship to their children. I got back my SA citizenship without any application to regain it.
Thanks con court. We have great independence and great judges.
M always captivated and intrigued by the engagement from Justice MR Madlanga to counsels....he always displays clarity of thought and expression...6/11/2024
Admittedly i wanted to listen to the constitutional court due to myself personally being able to relate to the subject or matter. Interestingly, legislation should be simple, the fact that the sections application, e.g, where marriage occurs, it should not apply, seemed still needed clarification, reflects that the current provision is not simple. Interestingly, the citizen frustration in making these applications for permission are extensively prolonged, and the power, arbitrary by Minister to not approve, are all very challenging.
At the 11:30 mark, Mr Katz is incorrectly saying that Mr Plaaitjies should not have lost his SA citizenship as he gained UK citizenship by marriage - which is NOT true. No-one gains UK (or US, Australian etc. citizenship) through marriage. What they do get is the right to residence in that country - and can remain a resident of that country - there is no requirement to then take the entirely voluntary act of naturalization several years later, which is how those who marry foreign citizens MAY become foreign citizens -i.e. they do so through naturalization, and not through marriage. i.e. they become ELIGIBLE (eventually) for citizenship through marriage, but the BECOME citizens through naturalization - an entirely voluntary act.
The automatic stripping of a citizen citizenship, for no legitimate reason, for example, criminal behavior (although i dont agree these grounds, unless it was related to like treason - something very serious, or other valid ground, seems beyond excessive...almost military action....
Whether repriciptivity..lol it would make easier for government as they dont need process persons who have lost citizenship and apply to Home Affairs...for home affairs to process these apllications. Further there is no impact on home affairs. If as a citizen comment, if i changed the law i would require citizens to notify home affairs if they assume another citizenship..so home affairs has record. However, notification should be easy process of notification
Turkey allows dual citizenship; it merely requires one to notify the relevant Ministry. Those who apply for another nationality inform the relevant Turkish authority (usually the nearest Turkish embassy or consulate abroad) and provide the original naturalisation certificate, Turkish birth certificate, document attesting to completion of military service (for males), marriage certificate (if applicable) and four photographs. Of course, failure to do this does NOT mean you lose your Turkish citizenship however; Turkey has no automatic loss provision. It seems more directory rather than mandatory.
This is another less restrictive alternative which shows why the existing law is unconstitutional.
Not convinced by Katz on this one
The stronger argument is non-discrimination, dignity, and lack of due process.
1. There is no judicial or quasi-judicial body which exists to remove the citizenship status of the applicant. Rather, the loss is ex lege, without notice and without any formal hearing. Fundamental rights cannot be lost without due process - here fair and reasonable procedure requires a formal judicial or quasi-judicial hearing **prior** to their citizenship being lost. We need an impartial apolitical decision maker who can assess, in all the circumstances, whether the loss would be in accordance with the principle of proportionality.
2. A naturalised SA citizen can retain their citizenship by birth or descent (if that country accepts dual citizenship). So can someone who is under 18. So can a married person. So why not a South African by birth and descent who acquires a foreign citizenship? So many other exceptions it absurdly swallows the rule.
3. It goes without saying citizenship confers dignity. But s6(1)(a) renders you a foreigner - the same status for criminals, fraudsters, and mercenaries under s6(1)(b), 8(1)(a), and 8(2) of the Citizenship Act. The loss also removes numerous political and economic rights that are linked with both citizenship and dignity (eg the right to vote and to actively participate in public affairs, etc).
@@jamesbrandstetter789 UK allows dual nationality, what he did what a lot of them do is that they do not apply to the SA consulate for permission to take on British citizenship. To retain you SA citizenship you need to apply and wait for the permission letter and then apply for British citizenship. Even on the British application they do ask you if you have permission from your country to apply for UK citizenship. I had to send my permission letter when I applied for UK citizenship. This is a matter of a lot of people just not being bothered to do what they need to do. I say give them a huge fine for their neglectful behaviour.
@@Tinker8531A fine is still a less drastic and less restrictive alternative to wholesale loss of citizenship.
I suspect the reason he did not do it (although this occurred back in the early 2000s) was because most do not know about it (you are in the 3% that do) and 76% of countries worldwide do not have such a procedure (dual citizenship is simply legal and viewed innocously in most countries) and one is not sure exactly what one has to say to retain it. Unlike s25 of the German Nationality Act (repealed this year), there is no clear statutory criteria as to what is being balanced or what exactly they are looking for. You have only 4 summary lines on the application form to explain why you want to retain it. The form asks you how you got your second citizenship, but not why. Your fate - and many political rights with it - is at the mercy of the government who may or may not grant the request.
Anyways, my due process point stands: a person should lose their citizenship only *after formal judicial or quasi-judicial hearing* and *before a neutral apolitical umpire* - not simply by force of law and it should not depend on a career politican who may or may not like your politics.
So stands my antidiscrimination point:
Is this the son or relative of former CJ??? 6/11/2024
Whether repriciptivity..lol it would make easier for government as they dont need process persons who have lost citizenship and apply to Home Affairs...for home affairs to process these apllications. Further there is no impact on home affairs. If as a citizen comment, if i changed the law i would require citizens to notify home affairs if they assume another citizenship..so home affairs has record. However, notification should be easy process of notification