[DaveR]

(08-01-2018 05:00 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:42 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

'compatriots' (those whose speak Russian natively and whose ancestors were born in Russia, the USSR or the Russian empire).

It appears that the compatriot law was repealed in 2002 (unless you have an update).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenshi...ct_of_1999

A new package of laws was introduced in 2014 «Программа переселения соотечественников» (programme for the resettlement of compatriots) and streamlined a few times since. It's very generous in terms of documentation - they accept any kind of proof of a Russian ancetor as long as it can be verified with state records (birth certificates, military records, etc.) or in the state archives. But it really is only for native speakers, so all the info is in Russian.

[Medvetz63]

(07-07-2017 11:51 AM)mammal Wrote:  

Good info,but citizenship by investment isn't the only option.

If you've got the time, going through the immigration process and becoming a naturalized citizen is an option in many countries. And of course you get to live in the country even before you're a citizen.

If you've got the right ancestry,you may have automatic citizenship,or at least expedited citizenship.

I became a citizen of the Dominican Republic this way, by first being a resident and then applying for citizenship. I got married, which hastened the process (I am now divorced as of January of this year) and I was granted citizenship in June of 2015.

The DR allows you to be a resident without living there full time, which is pretty damn good, as most countries want you to live there for the majority of the year. It appears to be one of the easier countries to get citizenship from.

[Going strong]

(08-01-2018 03:42 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

Quite a valuable citizenship for thought criminals given that Russia doesn't ever allow extradition of its citizens and the various US three-letter agencies are unable to operate in Russia. China is probably the only other nation that can match this.

Be careful with this misconception, about "countries that do not extradite their citizens".

Because in most (all?) cases and countries, this applies only to natural-born citizens, and not to naturalized citizens. So if you get citizenship in a country that "do not extradite its citizens", you'd become an exception to the rule, as a citizen by acquisition.

[DaveR]

(08-05-2018 04:10 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:42 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

Quite a valuable citizenship for thought criminals given that Russia doesn't ever allow extradition of its citizens and the various US three-letter agencies are unable to operate in Russia. China is probably the only other nation that can match this.

Be careful with this misconception, about "countries that do not extradite their citizens".

Because in most (all?) cases and countries, this applies only to natural-born citizens, and not to naturalized citizens. So if you get citizenship in a country that "do not extradite its citizens", you'd become an exception to the rule, as a citizen by acquisition.

What misconception would that be? Do you have anything to support that baseless comment? I'm not interested in what other countries do; Russia does not extradite its citizens, and there is no distinction between those granted citizenship by decree, born in Russia, born abroad to Russian parents or naturalised citizens.

Here's the relevant clause right in the Constitution:

Quote:

Статья 61

1. Гражданин Российской Федерации не может быть выслан за пределы Российской Федерации или выдан другому государству.

And it's regularly tested in child custody cases.

[Going strong]

(08-05-2018 04:37 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 04:10 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:42 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

Quite a valuable citizenship for thought criminals given that Russia doesn't ever allow extradition of its citizens and the various US three-letter agencies are unable to operate in Russia. China is probably the only other nation that can match this.

Be careful with this misconception, about "countries that do not extradite their citizens".

Because in most (all?) cases and countries, this applies only to natural-born citizens, and not to naturalized citizens. So if you get citizenship in a country that "do not extradite its citizens", you'd become an exception to the rule, as a citizen by acquisition.

What misconception would that be? Do you have anything to support that baseless comment? I'm not interested in what other countries do; Russia does not extradite its citizens, and there is no distinction between those granted citizenship by decree, born in Russia, born abroad to Russian parents or naturalised citizens.

Here's the relevant clause right in the Constitution:

Quote:

Статья 61

1. Гражданин Российской Федерации не может быть выслан за пределы Российской Федерации или выдан другому государству.

And it's regularly tested in child custody cases.

Then, if what you say is true (there might be exceptions listed afterwards in the Constitution, I don't know), Russia is an exception, compared to most countries of the world.

And note that I said, in my post above, "most" countries, and not all.

Also, regarding this, I quote: "Do you have anything to support that baseless comment? I'm not interested in what other countries do", I can't help but smile at your (amusing) aggressive stance and mood: very typical for Russian men indeed. Relax, my friend, have another shot of vodka.

Now, the reason why most countries in the world make exceptions regarding their non-extradition laws, is that they logically want to avoid attracting people who are in (massive) trouble with the law in their original, native countries. So to discourage this kind of unsavory people from applying, most countries make exceptions to their laws.

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstre...equence=11

General rule of law, worldwide:
"that the nationality of the accused shall be considered to be the one that he or she possessed on the date of the commission of the alleged offense."

And never forget that you could be stripped from the citizenship you acquired, if you failed to disclose your full legal situation when you applied for it:

"Fourthly, provision is often made for denaturalization if the nationality was acquired fraudulently, ‘particularly through the statement of false data, or through misleading the authorities by omitting data or facts’. Fraudulent purpose (to avoid extradition and, hence, prosecution) or the concealment of the fact that the person might be wanted for prosecution of a serious crime abroad has been considered sufficient to qualify under this title."

[DaveR]

(08-05-2018 04:55 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

Then, if what you say is true (there might be exceptions listed afterwards in the Constitution, I don't know), Russia is an exception, compared to most countries of the world.

And note that I said, in my post above, "most" countries, and not all.

Also, regarding this, I quote: "Do you have anything to support that baseless comment? I'm not interested in what other countries do", I can't help but smile at your (amusing) aggressive stance and mood: very typical for Russian men indeed. Relax, my friend, have another shot of vodka.

Now, the reason why most countries in the world make exceptions regarding their non-extradition laws, is that they logically want to avoid attracting people who are in (massive) trouble with the law in their original, native countries. So to discourage this kind of unsavory people from applying, most countries make exceptions to their laws.

I just think it's quite arrogant to label something a "misconception" when you're not versed in the topic at hand. Russia is not 'other countries'. The Constitution goes on to state that citizens should be afforded protection of the state even when they're abroad. Russia often uses that clause to justify its incursions into neighbouring countries.

That clause holds quite a lot of weight in the Duma and amongst other powerful Russians as they're often accused of various transgressions of internaional norms and laws. Treaties and the international courts may have ultimate jurisdiction in whichever country you're in, but in Russia they don't.

If you don't believe me, here it is in Putin's words: "Never. Never. Russia does not extradite its citizens to anyone" / «Никогда. Никогда. Россия вообще своих граждан никому не выдает»

[Going strong]

(08-05-2018 05:15 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 04:55 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

Then, if what you say is true (there might be exceptions listed afterwards in the Constitution, I don't know), Russia is an exception, compared to most countries of the world.

And note that I said, in my post above, "most" countries, and not all.

Also, regarding this, I quote: "Do you have anything to support that baseless comment? I'm not interested in what other countries do", I can't help but smile at your (amusing) aggressive stance and mood: very typical for Russian men indeed. Relax, my friend, have another shot of vodka.

Now, the reason why most countries in the world make exceptions regarding their non-extradition laws, is that they logically want to avoid attracting people who are in (massive) trouble with the law in their original, native countries. So to discourage this kind of unsavory people from applying, most countries make exceptions to their laws.

I just think it's quite arrogant to label something a "misconception" when you're not versed in the topic at hand. Russia is not 'other countries'. The Constitution goes on to state that citizens should be afforded protection of the state even when they're abroad. Russia often uses that clause to justify its incursions into neighbouring countries.

That clause holds quite a lot of weight in the Duma and amongst other powerful Russians as they're often accused of various transgressions of international norms and laws. Treaties and the international courts may have ultimate jurisdiction in whichever country you're in, but in Russia they don't.

If you don't believe me, here it is in Putin's words: "Never. Never. Russia does not extradite its citizens to anyone" / «Никогда. Никогда. Россия вообще своих граждан никому не выдает»

I appreciate the data you are giving us here on Russia and its laws. But, regarding, I quote: "you're not versed in the topic at hand", well, read if you want the Rawmeo thread, and you'll see that I'm quite well informed about extradition laws (if not specifically in or from Russia).

And I might add that Vladimir Vladimirovich certainly was referring to natural-born Russians, Russian-speaking Russians, in this statement. As I could bet that a foreign-born dude would get "denaturalized" if he had mislead the Russian authorities.

I'll give you an example. A, say, Swedish or Turkish dude obtains Russian citizenship. But then, couple of years later, it is discovered that this dude was wanted in his home country for rape or terrorism (or both if Turkish). I can bet that this dude would be stripped of his Russian citizenship real fast, and extradited (if not beaten to death first by his neighbors).

[DaveR]

(08-05-2018 04:55 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstre...equence=11

General rule of law, worldwide:
"that the nationality of the accused shall be considered to be the one that he or she possessed on the date of the commission of the alleged offense."

The article you quoted supports the opposite of what you've claimed. I.e. there is no international norm:

Quote:

State practice is very limited and internationally reported decisions differ widely on the issue. Three distinct positions are discernible. Some municipal decisions indicate that nationality either at the time of the decision on extradition or at the time of the offence is sufficient. Others consider that the nationality of the accused at the time of the extradition request should be decisive. Finally, it is often held that the material moment for the determination of nationality is that of the commission of the crime. In contrast, the possession of the nationality of the requested state between or prior to these two dates, but not valid on any of the two, does not appear sufficient to refuse extradition.

However, due to the limited number of internationally reported cases, it is very difficult to discern any conclusive evidence of customary international law. Moreover, states’ opinions on the applicable rules appear to be greatly influenced by their position (i.e. whether they are the requesting or requested state) in a particular case. However, there is little, if any, evidence that states would object to the domestic legislation of others related to the non-extradition of nationals.

Accordingly, it can be concluded, based on the above overview of treaties, domestic legislation and case law, that while no rules of international law explicitly recognize the right of states to deny extradition of their nationals (nationality being based on whatever bona fide criteria consistent with international law), it does not prohibit them from doing so, and it does not restrict the application of the nationality exception. The impact of such a liberal regime of the non-extradition of nationals on the possibilities of prosecution is, however, not as devastating as it might appear at first glance. In fact, in practice, the effect of the nationality exemption is mitigated in several ways.

[Going strong]

(08-05-2018 05:29 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 04:55 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstre...equence=11

General rule of law, worldwide:
"that the nationality of the accused shall be considered to be the one that he or she possessed on the date of the commission of the alleged offense."

The article you quoted supports the opposite of what you've claimed. I.e. there is no international norm:

Quote:

State practice is very limited and internationally reported decisions differ widely on the issue. Three distinct positions are discernible. Some municipal decisions indicate that nationality either at the time of the decision on extradition or at the time of the offence is sufficient. Others consider that the nationality of the accused at the time of the extradition request should be decisive. Finally, it is often held that the material moment for the determination of nationality is that of the commission of the crime. In contrast, the possession of the nationality of the requested state between or prior to these two dates, but not valid on any of the two, does not appear sufficient to refuse extradition.

However, due to the limited number of internationally reported cases, it is very difficult to discern any conclusive evidence of customary international law. Moreover, states’ opinions on the applicable rules appear to be greatly influenced by their position (i.e. whether they are the requesting or requested state) in a particular case. However, there is little, if any, evidence that states would object to the domestic legislation of others related to the non-extradition of nationals.

Accordingly, it can be concluded, based on the above overview of treaties, domestic legislation and case law, that while no rules of international law explicitly recognize the right of states to deny extradition of their nationals (nationality being based on whatever bona fide criteria consistent with international law), it does not prohibit them from doing so, and it does not restrict the application of the nationality exception. The impact of such a liberal regime of the non-extradition of nationals on the possibilities of prosecution is, however, not as devastating as it might appear at first glance. In fact, in practice, the effect of the nationality exemption is mitigated in several ways.

Much respect man, you actually read (and carefully, at that) the obtuse legal text I was referring to. Which means you are over 25 and not a woman: triple respect.

But you'll note the end of the quoted part from above: In fact, in practice, the effect of the nationality exemption is mitigated in several ways: denaturalization it is.

Meaning, most countries do not extradite a citizen, granted - but, one would still be fucked as most countries would denaturalize you, and then deport you (not extradite you, actually, as I am "versed" enough in these matters to understand the difference between deportation and extradition: extradition is almost never needed).

[DaveR]

(08-05-2018 05:27 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

I appreciate the data you are giving us here on Russia and its laws. But, regarding, I quote: "you're not versed in the topic at hand", well, read if you want the Rawmeo thread, and you'll see that I'm quite well informed about extradition laws (if not specifically in or from Russia).

And I might add that Vladimir Vladimirovich certainly was referring to natural-born Russians, Russian-speaking Russians, in this statement. As I could bet that a foreign-born dude would get "denaturalized" if he had mislead the Russian authorities.

I'll give you an example. A, say, Swedish or Turkish dude obtains Russian citizenship. But then, couple of years later, it is discovered that this dude was wanted in his home country for rape or terrorism (or both if Turkish). I can bet that this dude would be stripped of his Russian citizenship real fast, and extradited (if not beaten to death first by his neighbors).

This is going quite off-topic, but:

1. I'm not interested in the extradition laws of other countries, and in any case, they are irrelevant to my comments about Russia's practice. See above - there is no such international 'norm' in this area.

2. Putin was referring to Russian citizens; how they obtain their citizenship is irrelevant and Russian law doesn't contain the concept of "natural born citizens". Much of Russia's population, including the elites, are from other parts of the USSR, hence are not citizens by blood or soil.

3. I agree that if one obtains his citizenship fraudulently, it could be revoked. That should not be a surprise to anyone.

[Going strong]

(08-05-2018 05:45 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

(08-05-2018 05:27 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

I appreciate the data you are giving us here on Russia and its laws. But, regarding, I quote: "you're not versed in the topic at hand", well, read if you want the Rawmeo thread, and you'll see that I'm quite well informed about extradition laws (if not specifically in or from Russia).

And I might add that Vladimir Vladimirovich certainly was referring to natural-born Russians, Russian-speaking Russians, in this statement. As I could bet that a foreign-born dude would get "denaturalized" if he had mislead the Russian authorities.

I'll give you an example. A, say, Swedish or Turkish dude obtains Russian citizenship. But then, couple of years later, it is discovered that this dude was wanted in his home country for rape or terrorism (or both if Turkish). I can bet that this dude would be stripped of his Russian citizenship real fast, and extradited (if not beaten to death first by his neighbors).

This is going quite off-topic, but:

1. I'm not interested in the extradition laws of other countries, and in any case, they are irrelevant to my comments about Russia's practice. See above - there is no such international 'norm' in this area.

2. Putin was referring to Russian citizens; how they obtain their citizenship is irrelevant and Russian law doesn't contain the concept of "natural born citizens". Much of Russia's population, including the elites, are from other parts of the USSR, hence are not citizens by blood or soil.

3. I agree that if one obtains his citizenship fraudulently, it could be revoked. That should not be a surprise to anyone.

2- Vladimir Vladimirovich was referring to Russian-speaking Russians. Nashi liudi. Whether originally from RF proper or from former FSU.

3- But it is still a surprise to 90% of the people who get denaturalized.

Also, note the problem: most people wanting second citizenship, have or have had prior legal troubles in their native countries, but, in this case if they ever obtain second citizenship, it might be revoked (as they have had to hide this troublesome fact during their process of applying).

[DaveR]

(08-05-2018 05:55 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

2- Vladimir Vladimirovich was referring to Russian-speaking Russians. Nashi liudi. Whether originally from RF proper or from former FSU.

In that particular quote he was referring to accused election-meddlers; no doubt some of them American Russians. But there's plenty of legal precedent in family custody cases. I doesn't matter how 'local' the citizen is.

(08-05-2018 05:55 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

3- But it is still a surprise to 90% of the people who get denaturalized.

Also, note the problem: most people wanting second citizenship, have or have had prior legal troubles in their native countries, but, in this case if they ever obtain second citizenship, it might be revoked (as they have had to hide this troublesome fact during their process of applying).

I agree that some people would attempt to misuse naturalisation for that purpose, but I think you underestimate the legitimate uses that others would find: the UK, for example (and a number of other countries are following this trend), claims universal jurisdiction over its citizens in various areas. Financial and/or trade sanctions and bribery offences are a big one. Another is sex offences - the following particularly bothers me, given the never-ending shift in the definition of 'rape' in the UK:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...rpetrators
(edited for clarity)

Quote:

If you are under 18 and the suspect is a UK national, UK police forces may be able to prosecute the suspect in the UK for a serious sexual offence committed outside the UK under Section 72 of the Sexual Offenses Act 2003. Your local police station should be able to advise, or refer your case to the Crown Prosecution Service or Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for consideration.

I expect this trend of universal jurisdiction over citizens for moral crimes to expand as countries continue down their degenerate paths... hate speech can't be too far behind.

[Seth_Rose]

(08-05-2018 05:55 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

...

Also, note the problem: most people wanting second citizenship, have or have had prior legal troubles in their native countries, but, in this case if they ever obtain second citizenship, it might be revoked (as they have had to hide this troublesome fact during their process of applying).

Have to disagree here. You'll notice that for the application process for Citizenship-by-Investment programs there is a "Due Diligence" aspect that is involved.

You can look at the website of St. Kitts for example. There is a $7500 due diligence fee involved:

https://www.ciu.gov.kn/investment-options/

I'm involved in this process (Can message me for more details). Basically, if someone was a shady character, say involved in money laundering or terrorist financing, they'd likely be caught in this background investigation process and denied the passport.

When I started working in this field, I was expecting to come across a bunch of oligarchs, criminal overlords and other shady figures.

The reality?

Most people applying for 2nd passports are, while not ordinary, are not exceedingly wealthy or interesting. There is rarely litigation against them--maybe through their corporate interests at worst.

Many of them are using much of their savings to apply for these passports. There are a ton of requests coming from the Middle East, many people from places like Syria and Iraq. These people are not super rich, but they have just enough money to apply for these passports so they can improve the lives of their families.

[FivePoints]

Why is Panama not on the list? It also offers a very simple citizenship by investment program (or several). I believe an amount as low as $50,000 would suffice. At least this was the case a couple of years ago. You'd also have the benefit of zero taxation on foreign investments (which I guess is true for most of the Caribbean islands as well though - but who'd want to live in Dominica?).

To be honest, I don't really see the purpose of these citizenships unless you are an American who are taxed on your worldwide income (but then you'd still have to renounce your American citizenship), or if you actually intend to live in that country full time. For anyone else, just live wherever you want and don't report your income.

[FivePoints]

(08-01-2018 06:23 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 05:00 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 03:42 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

'compatriots' (those whose speak Russian natively and whose ancestors were born in Russia, the USSR or the Russian empire).

It appears that the compatriot law was repealed in 2002 (unless you have an update).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenshi...ct_of_1999

A new package of laws was introduced in 2014 «Программа переселения соотечественников» (programme for the resettlement of compatriots) and streamlined a few times since. It's very generous in terms of documentation - they accept any kind of proof of a Russian ancetor as long as it can be verified with state records (birth certificates, military records, etc.) or in the state archives. But it really is only for native speakers, so all the info is in Russian.

According to 23andme, I apparently have a Russian ancestor somewhere back in the 1850's. If I could hire someone to figure out who this person was, would that be enough to qualify for this citizenship program?

[DaveR]

(08-06-2018 03:08 PM)FivePoints Wrote:  

According to 23andme, I apparently have a Russian ancestor somewhere back in the 1850's. If I could hire someone to figure out who this person was, would that be enough to qualify for this citizenship program?

Your chances of finding those documents are not high. Russia has been through a couple of devastating wars since 1850, and most of the church's records were lost during the Soviet period.

If you manage to document it and speak Russian natively, then you would be eligible.

[DaveR]

(08-06-2018 02:55 PM)FivePoints Wrote:  

Why is Panama not on the list? It also offers a very simple citizenship by investment program (or several). I believe an amount as low as $50,000 would suffice. At least this was the case a couple of years ago. You'd also have the benefit of zero taxation on foreign investments (which I guess is true for most of the Caribbean islands as well though - but who'd want to live in Dominica?).

Because this thread is about citizenship by investment, and what Panama offers is residence by investment. You would then have to maintain that residence for five years before being eligible to apply. If you have that much time on your hands, plenty of countries offer the same for free.

(08-06-2018 02:55 PM)FivePoints Wrote:  

To be honest, I don't really see the purpose of these citizenships unless you are an American who are taxed on your worldwide income (but then you'd still have to renounce your American citizenship), or if you actually intend to live in that country full time. For anyone else, just live wherever you want and don't report your income.

Some people need use for the ability to travel (visa-free access), security against their other passport being cancelled for political reasons, tax planning (citizenship is sometimes a factor in determining residence), travel to restricted/enemy countries, and the list goes on... this was already covered earlier in the thread, I believe.

[Tail Gunner]

(08-06-2018 02:55 PM)FivePoints Wrote:  

Why is Panama not on the list? It also offers a very simple citizenship by investment program (or several). I believe an amount as low as $50,000 would suffice. At least this was the case a couple of years ago. You'd also have the benefit of zero taxation on foreign investments (which I guess is true for most of the Caribbean islands as well though - but who'd want to live in Dominica?).

Your information is old, stale, and irrelevant -- plus this issue was already addressed in post #36 of this thread, if you had bothered to read it.

thread-67468...pid1751562

[Going strong]

(08-06-2018 03:59 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

thread-67468...pid1751562

An excellent post of yours, indeed, Tail Gunner, linked above.

Now, this thread is about citizenship, but permanent residency is, I dare say, almost just as good... so if I may, one question: the Panama residency is a permanent one, or it has to be renewed each year, or every other year? (partly answered here, but not very clearly: thread-67468...pid1748369 )

I mean, isn't permanent residency almost as good as citizenship? I mean, it's basically a new citizenship (but without the passport , granted ) - still often it goes with an ID card allowing travel in neighboring countries (Mercosur or EU residency?).

[FivePoints]

(08-06-2018 03:45 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

Because this thread is about citizenship by investment, and what Panama offers is residence by investment. You would then have to maintain that residence for five years before being eligible to apply. If you have that much time on your hands, plenty of countries offer the same for free.

You only need to visit Panama for 1 day every year to maintain that residency status though. If you are changing citizenship for tax reasons, then residency is just as good.

Quote:

Some people need use for the ability to travel (visa-free access), security against their other passport being cancelled for political reasons, tax planning (citizenship is sometimes a factor in determining residence), travel to restricted/enemy countries, and the list goes on... this was already covered earlier in the thread, I believe.

Yes, I guess if you are from a country with very limited options in terms of visa free travelling (like some African and Middle Eastern countries), then why not. Or if you live in a dictatorship that won't let you out of the country. For Europeans however, there isn't much use. If you are doing this for the reason of taxation, this is determined by residency and not citizenship. I don't see the benefit of having citizenship in a place like Antigua, unless you are very rich (hundreds of millions of dollar net worth) and plan to spend more than 183 days a year in the country.

[DaveR]

(08-06-2018 04:16 PM)FivePoints Wrote:  

You only need to visit Panama for 1 day every year to maintain that residency status though. If you are changing citizenship for tax reasons, then residency is just as good.

The pitfalls of Panama's residency programme have been covered twice previously in this thread. For the third time: see Tail Gunner's post above.
In addition, residency is not at all equivalent to citizenship for tax-planning purposes. Citizenship is one of the tests used in many double-tax avoidance treaties and also in some countries' domestic tax domicile legislation (indicia of centre of vital interests). There's also the issue of driver's licences for those who don't wish to declare themselves resident in their other country of citizenship and don't meet the statutory requirements in their other country(ies) of residence.

(08-06-2018 04:16 PM)FivePoints Wrote:  

Yes, I guess if you are from a country with very limited options in terms of visa free travelling (like some African and Middle Eastern countries), then why not. Or if you live in a dictatorship that won't let you out of the country. For Europeans however, there isn't much use. If you are doing this for the reason of taxation, this is determined by residency and not citizenship. I don't see the benefit of having citizenship in a place like Antigua, unless you are very rich (hundreds of millions of dollar net worth) and plan to spend more than 183 days a year in the country.

As I pointed out above, tax residency and domicile is significantly more complicated than you're portraing it to be, and citizenship is one of the factors that is commonly included in the evaluation.
In any case, it is useful to those who aren't citizens of an EU member country.

[Tail Gunner]

(08-06-2018 04:16 PM)FivePoints Wrote:  

Yes, I guess if you are from a country with very limited options in terms of visa free travelling (like some African and Middle Eastern countries), then why not. Or if you live in a dictatorship that won't let you out of the country. For Europeans however, there isn't much use. If you are doing this for the reason of taxation, this is determined by residency and not citizenship. I don't see the benefit of having citizenship in a place like Antigua, unless you are very rich (hundreds of millions of dollar net worth) and plan to spend more than 183 days a year in the country.

You are obviously not a student of history. Swift radical changes are common around the world and throughout history. In 1913, just a few years before the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks were a tiny group of radicals. Four years later they had taken over the entire country and enslaved a nation -- and eventually enslaved fourteen other nations. In 1928, the Nazi party was a joke, winning a mere 2.6% of the votes in the national election that year. Not even five years later, Adolf Hitler was German chancellor and had been awarded supreme power by the Enabling Act of 1933. During the first three decades of the 20th century, Argentina outgrew Canada and Australia in population, total income, and per capita income. By 1913, Argentina was the world's 10th wealthiest state per capita. Then everything changed almost overnight. Look at what is going on in South Africa right now. I bet all those white farmers wish they had a second passport as their country turns into the next Zimbabwe. And socialist welfare policies are slowly destroying Western Europe. The backlash against the EU socialist technocrats has already begun in Eastern Europe and it will spread to Western Europe. Anything can happen at any time. The world can change very quickly -- and those who fail to plan . . . plan to fail.

[Tail Gunner]

(08-06-2018 04:12 PM)Going strong Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 03:59 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

thread-67468...pid1751562

An excellent post of yours, indeed, Tail Gunner, linked above.

Now, this thread is about citizenship, but permanent residency is, I dare say, almost just as good... so if I may, one question: the Panama residency is a permanent one, or it has to be renewed each year, or every other year? (partly answered here, but not very clearly: thread-67468...pid1748369 )

I mean, isn't permanent residency almost as good as citizenship? I mean, it's basically a new citizenship (but without the passport , granted ) - still often it goes with an ID card allowing travel in neighboring countries (Mercosur or EU residency?).

Once you get your Permanent Residency Visa, you are NOT required to live in Panama, but you are required to come back at least every two years for a visit. With regards to residency versus citizenship, it depends on your goal. If you want a place to live, to retire, or to have a bolthole (in the event of an economic meltdown or a serious domestic disturbance in your home country) then residency is fine. But if you want a second travel document in case yours gets revoked by your government (look at what is happening in the U.S., which is revoking passports for past-due child support and federal taxes), then you obviously need to acquire a second citizenship and a passport. Here is a recent step-by-step guide for acquiring permanent residency in Panama:

https://panamarelocationtours.com/demyst...sa-process

Significantly, this article states the dirty little secret (that I mentioned previously) that most lawyers and service providers fail to mention (because they only care about getting your cash for the residency process and they purposely act coy regarding citizenship requirements):

Quote:

After 5-years, you can apply for Panama citizenship and a passport IF you have lived in Panama the two previous years before applying.

[Going strong]

(08-06-2018 05:30 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

Look at what is going on in South Africa right now. I bet all those white farmers wish they had a second passport as their country turns into the next Zimbabwe.

I wrote, on some other thread of the forum, about this, noting that one country in the world had offered safe heaven, land and passport, to those White South-African farmers (and a few of them had accepted). It is Georgia, the country, not the US State.

thread-67438...pid1745603

Maybe Georgia is a good second-passport option? Any info on this?

Now, about this: "With regards to residency versus citizenship, it depends on your goal. If you want a place to live, to retire, or to have a bolthole (in the event of an economic meltdown or a serious domestic disturbance in your home country) then residency is fine. But if you want a second travel document in case yours gets revoked by your government", I wonder one thing:

If you have permanent residency in a country X and your thought-criminalizing home country Y revokes your passport, could you go to the consulate or embassy of country X and get a travel document enabling you to travel to country X, like a one-time, one-shot letter or temp passport? I seem to remember seeing this, people going back to their country with a letter valid for one transport (like, people getting deported)?
Concretely, if (when, I'm afraid) Western Europe enters civil war, would one (permanent resident of Panama) be able to go to Panama's embassy and obtain a letter or document, valid for one trip to Panama-city? Like the Red-cross or Church would give to people (and this included colorful German dudes traveling to Patagonia) after the end of WW2?

[FivePoints]

(08-06-2018 05:29 PM)DaveR Wrote:  

As I pointed out above, tax residency and domicile is significantly more complicated than you're portraing it to be, and citizenship is one of the factors that is commonly included in the evaluation.
In any case, it is useful to those who aren't citizens of an EU member country.

As I did say previously, citizenship comes into play if you are American (currently the only country in the world, to my knowledge, that taxes its citizens based on citizenship and not domicile/residency). And as I did say too, a second passport would be useful if you aren't an EU citizen and would like to move there (in which case only the EU countries would be interesting, obviously - not the Caribbean countries). But that's obvious. Many EU citizens would like to move to America too. America also has citizenship by investment programs, as do South Africa, Hong Kong, Singapore etc. In fact, most countries do.

So, not sure why we are talking about little islands in the Caribbean. The only reason one would want to obtain citizenship there is for tax reasons. But (again, unless you're American and you renounce your American citizenship), simple residency is just as good. (EDIT: I did not think about your home country revoking your passport. In this case, it is absolutely beneficial with a second passport. I apologize for overlooking this).

Anyway, a driver's license usually can be obtained in most third world countries for a fee. No need for any paperwork. Most first world countries won't issue you a driver's license (even if you are a citizen), unless you are domiciled there for tax reasons. So, citizenship does not affect your ability to obtain a driver's license.

Tail Gunner Wrote:

You are obviously not a student of history. Swift radical changes are common around the world and throughout history. In 1913, just a few years before the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks were a tiny group of radicals. Four years later they had taken over the entire country and enslaved a nation -- and eventually enslaved fourteen other nations. In 1928, the Nazi party was a joke, winning a mere 2.6% of the votes in the national election that year. Not even five years later, Adolf Hitler was German chancellor and had been awarded supreme power by the Enabling Act of 1933. During the first three decades of the 20th century, Argentina outgrew Canada and Australia in population, total income, and per capita income. By 1913, Argentina was the world's 10th wealthiest state per capita. Then everything changed almost overnight. Look at what is going on in South Africa right now. I bet all those white farmers wish they had a second passport as their country turns into the next Zimbabwe. And socialist welfare policies are slowly destroying Western Europe. The backlash against the EU socialist technocrats has already begun in Eastern Europe and it will spread to Western Europe. Anything can happen at any time. The world can change very quickly -- and those who fail to plan . . . plan to fail.

As a fact I am quite an ardent student of history. If you can afford citizenship by investment, you can probably afford residency by investment too. I can't really see any difference in practicality. South Africans don't need a second passport to leave South Africa. They just need a ticket (unless the government puts in travel restrictions. But by then you should probably have left already. If you are prepared enough to go through the hassle of obtaining a second passport, I am sure you'd be prepared enough to leave your country before it completely falls apart).

Quote:

But if you want a second travel document in case yours gets revoked by your government (look at what is happening in the U.S., which is revoking passports for past-due child support and federal taxes), then you obviously need to acquire a second citizenship and a passport.

I was not aware of this fact. Interesting. But yes, if you are an enemy of the state in any way, shape or form, I agree citizenship would be beneficial. However, in the case you are describing here, a second passport is not going to help you. If you try to exit the US on a foreign passport, they are going to ask you where is your Visa is. What are you going to say then? That you are an American citizen? Then they'll ask for your social security number or US passport, and they'll see that you are banned from travelling.