I honestly don't know, I remember someone got trapped at an airport once because their country stopped existing while they were there
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
209 points (96.9% liked)
No Stupid Questions
35873 readers
1469 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Tom Hanks made a documentary about it.
Are you talking about The Terminal? Unless he made a second movie about the same guy, the word"documentary" seems like a stretch.
I think they are using the term documentary as a joke.
I think they were making the type of joke where people will call movies "documentaries" when they're really "fiction that can kind of almost be attributed to real events"
See: Idiocracy
Someone recently made me realize that movie is set in a better timeline than ours
See, they have a problem and find the smartest person in the world. Then, even though they think his idea is crazy, they listen to him
That's also 500 years down the road though, so there's hope lol
load more comments
(1 replies)
Woosh
This is so infuriating. The country didn't disappear overnight. The land is still there, they could have sent him back. Even if the country was nuked to ashes, they could just accept him as a political refugee.
didn't some poor cosmonaut get trapped in space because his country stopped existing whilst he was up there?
edit: sergei krikalev
load more comments
(1 replies)
You become stateless, and it’s a legal nightmare. Most countries won’t deport you, because they have nowhere to deport you to. But some countries like Australia will detain you until you get citizenship elsewhere. Sort of a catch-22, where you need to apply for citizenship to get out of prison, but can’t because no country wants to grant you citizenship because you’re in prison. The act of being stateless in itself isn’t a crime, but living somewhere without a visa is, and some countries (like Australia) don’t automatically grant visas to stateless people without some other reason like a refugee application.
Prior to the 60’s, it used to be much more common, because most countries use a legal concept called Jus Sanguinis, which basically means that citizenship gets passed from parents to children via birth. America, on the other hand, uses something called Jus Soli, which grants citizenship based on you being born in the country. But if the parents aren’t eligible to pass their citizenship on and the country they’re in doesn’t practice Jus Soli, then the child would be stateless. Back in the 60’s, most Jus Sanguinis countries agreed at a convention to provide emergency citizenship to individuals who would otherwise be born stateless.
These days, the largest causes are typically financial/records keeping issues in third world countries, or are due to politics like you’re describing. In the former, imagine a Jus Sanguinis country where you need to prove who your parents are. But they don’t have copies of their birth certificates or your birth certificate, and you don’t have money to get new ones. There’s also an administrative fee when you try to file the paperwork, and you can’t afford it. In the latter, it’s often due to good old fashioned racism. Certain ethnic groups being denied citizenship (like the Uyghur Muslims in China, or the Koreans in Japan following world war 2.) It’s also commonly due to authoritarian governments stripping citizenship for arbitrary reasons like you’ve mentioned. Russia isn’t the first to strip citizenship; It’s also common in parts of the Middle East.
America, on the other hand, uses something called Jus Soli, which grants citizenship based on you being born in the country.
I would clarify this from "America" to "most of the New World".
Dude this is sick! I've grown up my whole life in the US and never realized how many other countries do this. Wikipedia has an incredible map: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Asia and the Pacific - 1.582 million registered
Africa - 715,089 registered
Europe - 570,534 registered
Middle East and North Africa - 372,461 registered
Americas - 2,460 registered
These are really interesting numbers, I wonder if it has to do with immigration policies
A lot of it has to do with racism and not allowing full citizenship rights to minority groups.
Example of the above:
In the lead up to the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, the government published a formal list of every recognized ethnic group in the country to specifically exclude the Rohingya. This allowed them to paint the group as “illegal immigrants from Bangladesh” (despite having been in the country for centuries), remove their citizenship and thus their rights to education and work.
Link about the 1982 citizenship law: https://burmacampaign.org.uk/media/Myanmar’s-1982-Citizenship-Law-and-Rohingya.pdf
A huge reason I'd assume is soviet occupants in post-soviet countries. Correct me if I'm wrong here, many of Russians from soviet era living in Baltics with no Russian citizenship and haven't applied and passed local citizenship, are stateless. This is due to requirements like knowing the local language
Okay, my initial reading of these numbers were that the Americas must be shit at accepting people, then I did a short wiki dive and it has this:
Jus soli in many cases helps prevent statelessness.[11] Countries that have acceded to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness are obligated to grant nationality to people born in their territory who would otherwise become stateless persons.[12][a] The American Convention on Human Rights similarly provides that "Every person has the right to the nationality of the state in whose territory he was born if he does not have the right to any other nationality."[11]
And now I'm thinking maybe the numbers are so low in a good way?
That was a good read
Wait, you are trans and in Russia? That seems like reason enough to flee, I wouldn‘t wait until they become aware enough of you to strip your citizenship. Maybe Finland would be ok: https://en.seta.fi/human-rights-support/asylum-for-the-lgbt-and-activists/
Good luck, I hope you will be safe.
You should still be able to apply for refugee, asylum, permanent residency, or citizenship in other places. Whether or not that's realustica and feasible is another issue, but legally, you're fine: Your citizenship status at home won't affect your ability to seek a new home.
I suspect the best bet at the moment would be trying to ask Finland for asylum, since they're not allied with Russia. Getting within their territory might be challenging, though, as I suspect they'll require identification and/or outright block Russians from entering. Also, I have no idea how to proceed once within a different country. Maybe one of the baltic states might also work?
or outright block Russians from entering
If you've been stripped of citizenship for opposing the war, are you still Russian?
Obviously that's semantics, and what matters will be whether Finland still considers you Russian, but I think it would be in their benefit to allow entry to former Russians who are explicitly opposed to Russia's bullshit
I bet even if they tried to deport you, they wouldn't know where to, since you technically don't have a home country
Russia is not part of the UN convention that forbids making a person stateless, but I don’t think that would have mattered anyway.
As a stateless person, you can seek asylum in almost any European country.
You can get Brazilian citizenship if you are statelessness, here's an article about it . Iirc, you can do this from anywhere on the world, but doing it from inside brazillian territory would make it easier.
What happens is that you become a stateless person, just like the Palestinians once where. I can't speak for Russian law.
Many palestinians are still stateless world wide around 5 million persons.
That's still true for a lot of druze I the Golan heights, and while it doesn't have a drastic effect on their daily lives, traveling abroad is an absolute nightmare
This is a webpage from a guy who voluntarily because stateless. https://identityunknown.org/3e7/Introduction_A_series_of_life_experiences_by_Glen_Lee_Roberts_before_and_after_he_became_Voluntarily_Stateless
God, I honestly hope they revoke mine. Come what may, I don't think the general opinion about Russians will change any time soon.
Once I can get citizenship in another country, I'm gonna publically burn my russian passport - but not earlier
I'd advise against it if purely for ease of life in your new home country. Some, like UK require you to still have dealings with your previous country.
For example if i want to change my surname to my wifes name, home office demanded that i change the surname in my original passport first. They even say that if you need to physically go to your country of origin to do so, you have to unless they will kill you (for example persecution of LGBT). But i donno what kind of proof they would need to support this claim.
I have a strong suspicion that "burned my passport as a statement" would not qualify, even if it means supporting a terrorist state with cash (because consular services are paid by cash in 3rd world countries.)
this depends on your situation. If you did seek asylum from russia, you won't be asked to "have dealings with your previous country". You will even be asked not to have any.
They provided me with a list of exceptions but these were all relatively vague and could be interpreted in many ways. For example "wanting not to support a terrorist state financially" was not on the list. Just saying that there may be a benefit to keep at least the expired passport. Maybe in which ever country op goes to, they might have more sensible rules than here.
If your home country revokes your rights as a citizen, I would imagine that it gives you justification to claim refugee status with the UN.
You'll want to read up on Shamima Begum. She's currently stateless right now. Here's another article from Time if you want more information. Though her case is a bit different since she's a terrorist
Why should life be over?
There are just some rights that you don't have anymore. Some duties, too.
load more comments
(4 replies)
They did not want to think it through for they didn't care.
International human rights organizations
Maybe be comw a fugitive and leave
view more: next ›