What is wrong with her statement? She was right on the money, and Italian Congress gets all jittery and defensive.

Just like all desi kids here will grow up as 0% american and 100% indian.

There is a large 'Anglo-Indian' community in the place I come from near Chennai.

In fact, we had an 'Anglo-Indian' family as our tenants.

The irony is that they are not accepted as Indians by the mainstream population in India.

Even though they were born and raised in India, have never visited England and some of them have darker skin.


Whereas Rahul Gandhi is technically an Italian citizen, he is supposed to be a full blooded Indian.

sambarvada wrote:There is a large 'Anglo-Indian' community in the place I come from near Chennai.

In fact, we had an 'Anglo-Indian' family as our tenants.

The irony is that they are not accepted as Indians by the mainstream population in India.

Even though they were born and raised in India, have never visited England and some of them have darker skin.


Whereas Rahul Gandhi is technically an Italian citizen, he is supposed to be a full blooded Indian.

why is Rahul technically an Italian citizen (discounting dual citizenship as India does not have dual citizenship)?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What is wrong with her statement? She was right on the money, and Italian Congress gets all jittery and defensive.

>>>> Don't know. She was factually correct. If she had said he shouldn't run for office or something, I can see Congress getting bent out of shape. If that's not the case, why the brouhaha ? Looks like these guys have too much time on their hands..

sambarvada wrote:There is a large 'Anglo-Indian' community in the place I come from near Chennai.

In fact, we had an 'Anglo-Indian' family as our tenants.

The irony is that they are not accepted as Indians by the mainstream population in India.

Even though they were born and raised in India, have never visited England and some of them have darker skin.


Whereas Rahul Gandhi is technically an Italian citizen, he is supposed to be a full blooded Indian.

>>>> Rahul Gandhi was born in India.

Kris wrote:Looks like these guys have too much time on their hands..

Not just Caesar's wife, but Caesar's son must be above suspicion as well. So if someone casts any doubt on the Crown Prince, they are not going to stand for it.

Kris wrote:

sambarvada wrote:There is a large 'Anglo-Indian' community in the place I come from near Chennai.

In fact, we had an 'Anglo-Indian' family as our tenants.

The irony is that they are not accepted as Indians by the mainstream population in India.

Even though they were born and raised in India, have never visited England and some of them have darker skin.


Whereas Rahul Gandhi is technically an Italian citizen, he is supposed to be a full blooded Indian.

>>>> Rahul Gandhi was born in India.

But he could still be an Italian citizen coz of his mother & maternal grandparents.

Silhouette wrote:

Kris wrote:>>>> Rahul Gandhi was born in India.

But he could still be an Italian citizen coz of his mother & maternal grandparents.

Yeah, his mother gave up her Italian passport many years after Rahul was born. So he would have been eligible for Italian citizenship, and I don't think he has disclosed that he has given that up.

charvaka wrote:

Silhouette wrote:

Kris wrote:>>>> Rahul Gandhi was born in India.

But he could still be an Italian citizen coz of his mother & maternal grandparents.

Yeah, his mother gave up her Italian passport many years after Rahul was born. So he would have been eligible for Italian citizenship, and I don't think he has disclosed that he has given that up.

but is there a way to 'give it up'? it's an entitlement/benefit bestowed upon him. how does one give that up? irrespective of his mother, so long as any one of his grandparents were italian citizens he can claim that entitlement even after they are dead. i believe even his children can claim italian citizenship since sonia gandhi was an italian at one point.

Are you sure about that? I don't know about Italian citizenship law. In the case of India, a citizen can renounce his / her citizenship (and Indian law requires that any citizen who acquires the citizenship of another country actively do so by surrendering his / her passport.) I know this is true under US citizenship law too; those who want to avoid US tax jurisdiction do renounce US citizenship for tax reasons.

Are we talking about two different things? Most european nations follow the traditional jus sanguinis policy for citizenship whereby one's citizenship is determined by lineage and not by place of birth. Most such nations go up to grandparents to determine lineage (which is what Hitler used to determine one's jewishness).

Thus, even if Sonia Gandhi is no longer an Italian citizen and Rahul Gandhi was born outside Italy, he would still have the right/entitlement to claim Italian citizenship *in future* using his maternal grandparents as the link to Italy.

But I am not sure whether Italy would let someone claim italian citizenship if the only linking grandparent renounced it later as would be the case for Rahul Gandhi's kids and Sonia Gandhi.

Back to Rahul Gandhi, my point was, how could one possibly give up a benefit like that, something bestowed upon him by another country, a benefit that he supposedly hadn't claimed yet.

Also, I want to add that as a US citizen you can hold two passports. You are right that US doesn't recognize dual citizenship but if you hold two passports, it doesn't invalidate your american or the other citizenship when you exercise it. However when you travel abroad, your citizenship is determined by the passport you travel on. I dont know how it works in India.

As far as i know, almost every european nation recognizes dual citizenship.

Silhouette wrote:Are we talking about two different things?

We were... I didn't know about this "right to claim citizenship based on descent." That's just a right, and you can't give that up.

charvaka wrote:

Silhouette wrote:Are we talking about two different things?

We were... I didn't know about this "right to claim citizenship based on descent." That's just a right, and you can't give that up.

Now that I think about it India exercises it too. It gives OCI/PIO cards based on this policy.

Silhouette wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Silhouette wrote:Are we talking about two different things?

We were... I didn't know about this "right to claim citizenship based on descent." That's just a right, and you can't give that up.

Now that I think about it India exercises it too. It gives OCI/PIO cards based on this policy.

That's not really citizenship though. It's just a glorified long-stay visa for life.

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What is wrong with her statement? She was right on the money, and Italian Congress gets all jittery and defensive.

>>>> Don't know. She was factually correct. If she had said he shouldn't run for office or something, I can see Congress getting bent out of shape. If that's not the case, why the brouhaha ? Looks like these guys have too much time on their hands..

That seems to be very similar to Rashmun's attitude. Go completely blind about somebody just because you 'prefer' them. Be unwilling to accept anything about them that might go against the narrative that caused you to 'prefer' them. Even if facts and logic raise up and slap you in the face with their chappals, refuse to acknowledge them if they are opposed to the reasons for which you 'prefer' them.

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What is wrong with her statement? She was right on the money, and Italian Congress gets all jittery and defensive.

>>>> Don't know. She was factually correct. If she had said he shouldn't run for office or something, I can see Congress getting bent out of shape. If that's not the case, why the brouhaha ? Looks like these guys have too much time on their hands..

--> This was the Congress reaction. It appears that the press--eager for some reaction from the Congress-- asked the Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari for his views on Katarina's statement and he seems to have handled it well by not reacting to her statement at all:

Katrina's remarks were met with contempt by the Congress, with party
spokesperson Manish Tewari sarcastically saying, "Who is she? I do not
know. Tomorrow, you will ask for our reaction on the statement of Johnny
Lever. To what level you want to bring down the level of the political
discourse in the country?"





http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?section=Movies&Id=ENTEN20110180560&keyword=bollywood&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=120792

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What is wrong with her statement? She was right on the money, and Italian Congress gets all jittery and defensive.

>>>> Don't know. She was factually correct. If she had said he shouldn't run for office or something, I can see Congress getting bent out of shape. If that's not the case, why the brouhaha ? Looks like these guys have too much time on their hands..

--> This was the Congress reaction. It appears that the press--eager for some reaction from the Congress-- asked the Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari for his views on Katarina's statement and he seems to have handled it well by not reacting to her statement at all:

Katrina's remarks were met with contempt by the Congress, with party
spokesperson Manish Tewari sarcastically saying, "Who is she? I do not
know. Tomorrow, you will ask for our reaction on the statement of Johnny
Lever. To what level you want to bring down the level of the political
discourse in the country?"





http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?section=Movies&Id=ENTEN20110180560&keyword=bollywood&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=120792

Are you claiming that is the only reaction from Congress? Are you applying the Retardmun Method and claiming that Congress could not have had any other reaction because nothing else is printed in the article you linked and so there is no way that there could have been any other reaction? More importantly, do you agree that Katrina Kaif was right or not?

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What is wrong with her statement? She was right on the money, and Italian Congress gets all jittery and defensive.

>>>> Don't know. She was factually correct. If she had said he shouldn't run for office or something, I can see Congress getting bent out of shape. If that's not the case, why the brouhaha ? Looks like these guys have too much time on their hands..

--> This was the Congress reaction. It appears that the press--eager for some reaction from the Congress-- asked the Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari for his views on Katarina's statement and he seems to have handled it well by not reacting to her statement at all:

Katrina's remarks were met with contempt by the Congress, with party
spokesperson Manish Tewari sarcastically saying, "Who is she? I do not
know. Tomorrow, you will ask for our reaction on the statement of Johnny
Lever. To what level you want to bring down the level of the political
discourse in the country?"

http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?section=Movies&Id=ENTEN20110180560&keyword=bollywood&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=120792

By refusing to asnwer and/or accept that Prince Rahul is actually similar to Katrina's case and angrily retorting in Baachmanish fashion congress has shown its true rashmunesque thinking (or is it the other way about?)

Soniambal was 100% Italian at the time of the Prince's birth. So the Prince's Children are eligible for the Fascist citizenship by lineage. Also, no one has proved when Rahul Prince got his first passport and on what passport he traveled to Italy until the 80s. Until such time, it is only logical to assume that he used an Italian passport till his Mommy Soniambal got her Indian citizenship in 1983 after voting in 1980 illegally. Also, no proof that she surrendered or at least made a renunciation statement concerning her Italian citizenship in till now.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What is wrong with her statement? She was right on the money, and Italian Congress gets all jittery and defensive.

>>>> Don't know. She was factually correct. If she had said he shouldn't run for office or something, I can see Congress getting bent out of shape. If that's not the case, why the brouhaha ? Looks like these guys have too much time on their hands..

--> This was the Congress reaction. It appears that the press--eager for some reaction from the Congress-- asked the Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari for his views on Katarina's statement and he seems to have handled it well by not reacting to her statement at all:

Katrina's remarks were met with contempt by the Congress, with party
spokesperson Manish Tewari sarcastically saying, "Who is she? I do not
know. Tomorrow, you will ask for our reaction on the statement of Johnny
Lever. To what level you want to bring down the level of the political
discourse in the country?"

http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?section=Movies&Id=ENTEN20110180560&keyword=bollywood&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=120792

By refusing to asnwer and/or accept that Prince Rahul is actually similar to Katrina's case and angrily retorting in Baachmanish fashion congress has shown its true rashmunesque thinking (or is it the other way about?)

Soniambal was 100% Italian at the time of the Prince's birth. So the Prince's Children are eligible for the Fascist citizenship by lineage. Also, no one has proved when Rahul Prince got his first passport and on what passport he traveled to Italy until the 80s. Until such time, it is only logical to assume that he used an Italian passport till his Mommy Soniambal got her Indian citizenship in 1983 after voting in 1980 illegally. Also, no proof that she surrendered or at least made a renunciation statement concerning her Italian citizenship in till now.

--> if the congress comes to power in 2014, who do you think will be the prime minister?

charvaka wrote:

Silhouette wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Silhouette wrote:Are we talking about two different things?

We were... I didn't know about this "right to claim citizenship based on descent." That's just a right, and you can't give that up.

Now that I think about it India exercises it too. It gives OCI/PIO cards based on this policy.

orn That's not really citizenship though. It's just a glorified long-stay visa for life.

Italy has the concept of dual citizenship but India does not have it. If you take Italian citizenship, you renounce the Indian citizenship. Indian citizenship *used* to be very simple: born in india, parents (father?) born in India or lived in India for 5 years. In mid-1980s, the birth rule was changed to include the provision of at least one parent to be Indian and it was changed in early 2000s to mandate both parents be Indian or not illegally present.

The naturalization rules have changed to bigger duration of stay. However if you acquire another country's citizenship, you are automatically deemed to have renounced Indian citizenship.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What is wrong with her statement? She was right on the money, and Italian Congress gets all jittery and defensive.

>>>> Don't know. She was factually correct. If she had said he shouldn't run for office or something, I can see Congress getting bent out of shape. If that's not the case, why the brouhaha ? Looks like these guys have too much time on their hands..

--> This was the Congress reaction. It appears that the press--eager for some reaction from the Congress-- asked the Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari for his views on Katarina's statement and he seems to have handled it well by not reacting to her statement at all:

Katrina's remarks were met with contempt by the Congress, with party
spokesperson Manish Tewari sarcastically saying, "Who is she? I do not
know. Tomorrow, you will ask for our reaction on the statement of Johnny
Lever. To what level you want to bring down the level of the political
discourse in the country?"

http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?section=Movies&Id=ENTEN20110180560&keyword=bollywood&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=120792

By refusing to asnwer and/or accept that Prince Rahul is actually similar to Katrina's case and angrily retorting in Baachmanish fashion congress has shown its true rashmunesque thinking (or is it the other way about?)

Soniambal was 100% Italian at the time of the Prince's birth. So the Prince's Children are eligible for the Fascist citizenship by lineage. Also, no one has proved when Rahul Prince got his first passport and on what passport he traveled to Italy until the 80s. Until such time, it is only logical to assume that he used an Italian passport till his Mommy Soniambal got her Indian citizenship in 1983 after voting in 1980 illegally. Also, no proof that she surrendered or at least made a renunciation statement concerning her Italian citizenship in till now.

A very presumptuous argument, much like the arguments you have been mocking. Who was the father of Rahul? What was his citizenship? why is there an assumption that he acquired mom's citizenship and not his father's (while he was in father's country)? Why would he get an Italian citizenship when his grandma was PM of India? There are no facts to support that he had been using Italian passport. The SUCH school of logic is getting weirder by the day

artood2 wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What is wrong with her statement? She was right on the money, and Italian Congress gets all jittery and defensive.

>>>> Don't know. She was factually correct. If she had said he shouldn't run for office or something, I can see Congress getting bent out of shape. If that's not the case, why the brouhaha ? Looks like these guys have too much time on their hands..

--> This was the Congress reaction. It appears that the press--eager for some reaction from the Congress-- asked the Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari for his views on Katarina's statement and he seems to have handled it well by not reacting to her statement at all:

Katrina's remarks were met with contempt by the Congress, with party
spokesperson Manish Tewari sarcastically saying, "Who is she? I do not
know. Tomorrow, you will ask for our reaction on the statement of Johnny
Lever. To what level you want to bring down the level of the political
discourse in the country?"

http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?section=Movies&Id=ENTEN20110180560&keyword=bollywood&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=120792

By refusing to asnwer and/or accept that Prince Rahul is actually similar to Katrina's case and angrily retorting in Baachmanish fashion congress has shown its true rashmunesque thinking (or is it the other way about?)

Soniambal was 100% Italian at the time of the Prince's birth. So the Prince's Children are eligible for the Fascist citizenship by lineage. Also, no one has proved when Rahul Prince got his first passport and on what passport he traveled to Italy until the 80s. Until such time, it is only logical to assume that he used an Italian passport till his Mommy Soniambal got her Indian citizenship in 1983 after voting in 1980 illegally. Also, no proof that she surrendered or at least made a renunciation statement concerning her Italian citizenship in till now.

A very presumptuous argument, much like the arguments you have been mocking. Who was the father of Rahul? What was his citizenship? why is there an assumption that he acquired mom's citizenship and not his father's (while he was in father's country)? Why would he get an Italian citizenship when his grandma was PM of India? There are no facts to support that he had been using Italian passport. The SUCH school of logic is getting weirder by the day

Well said.

artood2 wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Kris wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:What is wrong with her statement? She was right on the money, and Italian Congress gets all jittery and defensive.

>>>> Don't know. She was factually correct. If she had said he shouldn't run for office or something, I can see Congress getting bent out of shape. If that's not the case, why the brouhaha ? Looks like these guys have too much time on their hands..

--> This was the Congress reaction. It appears that the press--eager for some reaction from the Congress-- asked the Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari for his views on Katarina's statement and he seems to have handled it well by not reacting to her statement at all:

Katrina's remarks were met with contempt by the Congress, with party
spokesperson Manish Tewari sarcastically saying, "Who is she? I do not
know. Tomorrow, you will ask for our reaction on the statement of Johnny
Lever. To what level you want to bring down the level of the political
discourse in the country?"

http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.aspx?section=Movies&Id=ENTEN20110180560&keyword=bollywood&subcatg=MOVIESINDIA&nid=120792

By refusing to asnwer and/or accept that Prince Rahul is actually similar to Katrina's case and angrily retorting in Baachmanish fashion congress has shown its true rashmunesque thinking (or is it the other way about?)

Soniambal was 100% Italian at the time of the Prince's birth. So the Prince's Children are eligible for the Fascist citizenship by lineage. Also, no one has proved when Rahul Prince got his first passport and on what passport he traveled to Italy until the 80s. Until such time, it is only logical to assume that he used an Italian passport till his Mommy Soniambal got her Indian citizenship in 1983 after voting in 1980 illegally. Also, no proof that she surrendered or at least made a renunciation statement concerning her Italian citizenship in till now.

A very presumptuous argument, much like the arguments you have been mocking. Who was the father of Rahul? What was his citizenship? why is there an assumption that he acquired mom's citizenship and not his father's (while he was in father's country)? Why would he get an Italian citizenship when his grandma was PM of India? There are no facts to support that he had been using Italian passport. The SUCH school of logic is getting weirder by the day

*there is no evidence to support the fact

artood2 wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Silhouette wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Silhouette wrote:Are we talking about two different things?

We were... I didn't know about this "right to claim citizenship based on descent." That's just a right, and you can't give that up.

Now that I think about it India exercises it too. It gives OCI/PIO cards based on this policy.

orn That's not really citizenship though. It's just a glorified long-stay visa for life.

Italy has the concept of dual citizenship but India does not have it. If you take Italian citizenship, you renounce the Indian citizenship. Indian citizenship *used* to be very simple: born in india, parents (father?) born in India or lived in India for 5 years. In mid-1980s, the birth rule was changed to include the provision of at least one parent to be Indian and it was changed in early 2000s to mandate both parents be Indian or not illegally present.

The naturalization rules have changed to bigger duration of stay. However if you acquire another country's citizenship, you are automatically deemed to have renounced Indian citizenship.

Practically speaking, how would India find out if someone becomes a naturalized citizen of a country that recognizes dual citizenship and the person does not voluntarily disclose this info to Indian authorities?

Carvaka: True. I kinda wonder though if one is entitled to indian consular services abroad on the basis of an OCI card.

Silhouette wrote:

artood2 wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Silhouette wrote:

charvaka wrote:We were... I didn't know about this "right to claim citizenship based on descent." That's just a right, and you can't give that up.

Now that I think about it India exercises it too. It gives OCI/PIO cards based on this policy.

orn That's not really citizenship though. It's just a glorified long-stay visa for life.

Italy has the concept of dual citizenship but India does not have it. If you take Italian citizenship, you renounce the Indian citizenship. Indian citizenship *used* to be very simple: born in india, parents (father?) born in India or lived in India for 5 years. In mid-1980s, the birth rule was changed to include the provision of at least one parent to be Indian and it was changed in early 2000s to mandate both parents be Indian or not illegally present.

The naturalization rules have changed to bigger duration of stay. However if you acquire another country's citizenship, you are automatically deemed to have renounced Indian citizenship.

Practically speaking, how would India find out if someone becomes a naturalized citizen of a country that recognizes dual citizenship and the person does not voluntarily disclose this info to Indian authorities?

Carvaka: True. I kinda wonder though if one is entitled to indian consular services abroad on the basis of an OCI card.

you are supposed to surrender your passport to Indian consulate. they used to ask for proof of surrender for OCI/PIO applications.

Silhouette wrote:Practically speaking, how would India find out if someone becomes a naturalized citizen of a country that recognizes dual citizenship and the person does not voluntarily disclose this info to Indian authorities?

You are right... there really is no way for the Indian government to know for sure. As an MP and a General Secretary of the ruling party, Rahul Gandhi should disclose whether he holds or ever held citizenship of another country.

From his perspective, there would be value in having the additional passport, even though his grandmother and father had been PMs of India. Particularly during his years of overseas education and work, it would have helped lower his security risk if it wasn't widely known he was the Crown Prince of India. That's why he used the name Raul Vinci during his undergrad days in the US; an Italian passport would have helped further protect that false identity.

artood2 wrote:you are supposed to surrender your passport to Indian consulate. they used to ask for proof of surrender for OCI/PIO applications.

Supposed to is the key there. I read that Sonia Gandhi became an Indian citizen only in 1983, and she voted in 1980 although she wasn't supposed to.

Besides, the surrender at a consulate thing applies for Indians living abroad who get naturalized to other country citizenship.

charvaka wrote:

Silhouette wrote:Practically speaking, how would India find out if someone becomes a naturalized citizen of a country that recognizes dual citizenship and the person does not voluntarily disclose this info to Indian authorities?

You are right... there really is no way for the Indian government to know for sure. As an MP and a General Secretary of the ruling party, Rahul Gandhi should disclose whether he holds or ever held citizenship of another country.

From his perspective, there would be value in having the additional passport, even though his grandmother and father had been PMs of India. Particularly during his years of overseas education and work, it would have helped lower his security risk if it wasn't widely known he was the Crown Prince of India. That's why he used the name Raul Vinci during his undergrad days in the US; an Italian passport would have helped further protect that false identity.

I *guess* there are declaration to be filled when you file a nomination form for elections. Using an additional passport does not lower the security risk. It is of value at point of entry only. Coming to USA, he would have needed US visa and would have to show documentation for his name/nationality. Using a different name requires other documentation unless US govt. helped him as a security measure.

The whole situation of Rahul's passport is a bit like Obama birth certificate. If he does become a citizen of some other country later on, it would be just like you and me. Calling him half-Italian is like calling all the ABDs as 0%-American. The mongering on citizenship issues in India is worse than right wingies here.

charvaka wrote:

artood2 wrote:you are supposed to surrender your passport to Indian consulate. they used to ask for proof of surrender for OCI/PIO applications.

Supposed to is the key there. I read that Sonia Gandhi became an Indian citizen only in 1983, and she voted in 1980 although she wasn't supposed to.

Besides, the surrender at a consulate thing applies for Indians living abroad who get naturalized to other country citizenship.

I was only commenting on Rahul's citizenship, not Sonia's. If you are in India when you acquire foreign citizenship, I am sure there will be places where you cna surrender your passport

artood2 wrote:
you are supposed to surrender your passport to Indian consulate. they used to ask for proof of surrender for OCI/PIO applications.

too bad i deleted part of my comment from last night on the indian bureaucrats.

no you are not required to submit your old indian passports and this renunciation process is very very recent. there was no such thing in the past.

artood2 wrote:Just like all desi kids here will grow up as 0% american and 100% indian.

meri maata hai italaani
ye shalwar mossalmaani
aur ye gori hai espaani
phir bhi dil hai hindustani

talking about Rahul Gandhi, and I am not too good with current affairs... he is not married, right? If true, why is he like 40 and not yet married? How about a g/f?

Is Priyanka Gandhi Indian citizen? What about vadera and their kids?

Silhouette wrote:

artood2 wrote:
you are supposed to surrender your passport to Indian consulate. they used to ask for proof of surrender for OCI/PIO applications.

too bad i deleted part of my comment from last night on the indian bureaucrats.

no you are not required to submit your old indian passports and this renunciation process is very very recent. there was no such thing in the past.

And the point is...? If you acquire another nationality and use Indian passport it is illegal and like other crimes it is punishable when caught. It is similar to a foreign national coming to India, obtaining fake papers and getting an Indian passport. There is no good way to check it but it is punishable when caught.

Silhouette wrote:

artood2 wrote:
you are supposed to surrender your passport to Indian consulate. they used to ask for proof of surrender for OCI/PIO applications.

too bad i deleted part of my comment from last night on the indian bureaucrats.

no you are not required to submit your old indian passports and this renunciation process is very very recent. there was no such thing in the past.

anything to support that?

http://www.immihelp.com/nri/indian-citizenship-renunciation-surrender-certificate/

Tracy Whitney wrote:current affairs... he is not married, right? If true, why is he like 40 and not yet married? How about a g/f?

That's a pretty good definition of current affairs

artood2 wrote:

Tracy Whitney wrote:current affairs... he is not married, right? If true, why is he like 40 and not yet married? How about a g/f?

That's a pretty good definition of current affairs

well, if it's a prince's life, then yeah... those totally qualify as current affairs...

artood2 wrote:I *guess* there are declaration to be filled when you file a nomination form for elections.

If there is, I don't think anything more is needed from Rahul Gandhi.

artood2 wrote:Using an additional passport does not lower the security risk.

Having an Italian passport in the name that he was using then would have lowered the number of US government agencies that would need to know who he really is.

artood2 wrote:The whole situation of Rahul's passport is a bit like Obama birth certificate.

This is true. And just like the Obama campaign answered the citizenship questions early on in the 2008 cycle, Rahul Gandhi will do well to clarify this matter.

artood2 wrote:Calling him half-Italian is like calling all the ABDs as 0%-American. The mongering on citizenship issues in India is worse than right wingies here.

We Indians confuse citizenship with ethnic origin all the time. That's because our culture is not as used to immigration as American culture is.

artood2 wrote:

Silhouette wrote:

artood2 wrote:
you are supposed to surrender your passport to Indian consulate. they used to ask for proof of surrender for OCI/PIO applications.

too bad i deleted part of my comment from last night on the indian bureaucrats.

no you are not required to submit your old indian passports and this renunciation process is very very recent. there was no such thing in the past.

anything to support that?

http://www.immihelp.com/nri/indian-citizenship-renunciation-surrender-certificate/

Yes. One, an official source. Two, personal knowledge.

Below is the link to application instructions for a PIO card from the indian consulate's official outsourcing agency Travisa.
https://indiavisa.travisaoutsourcing.com/pio/display-requirements

Look at # 8 where, as proof of your prior indian citizenship, they ask you to submit copies of your old indian passport that's obviously in your possession. There is no mention of surrendering the original passport.

Importantly, look at # 9, first two instructions for former nationals before June 2010. It is clear that these people are continuing to hold onto their former indian passports and not obligated to surrender.

I have two of my old indian passports with the knowledge and consent of the ny consulate for almost a decade now. Last night i had written and deleted a comment that when I switched my citizenship my indian passport was never marked cancelled by the NY consulars. I've been going to them regularly for peripheral paperwork such as birth certificate attestations and have carried proof of my current citizenship as a requirement. So they know. Though, in fairness to them once i was given a verbal instruction, 'tu iss passport par travel mat karna, accha?' to which i accha'ed.

I applied for my PIO card last year, didn't need renunciation, was grandfathered into older rules and handed back both my older passports by the consular. The PIO didn't make it on time so I applied for an urgent entry visa at travisa. Entry visa category is for people who were indian citizens at one point and therefore not technically tourists. But one has to demonstrate former indian citizenship and again I did that through my old indian passport. Again, got back the original. This was also instructed on the app.

Anyways, indian bureaucrats have their own rules separate and apart from the official rules. Therefore, forget surrendering, I'm still waiting for the consulars to mark my last indian passport as cancelled. My favorite story is when I applied for a long form birth certificate and got back a paper that didn't mention my place of birth. Ha, that was cute. No wait, they asked me to pay again to get it fixed! I did what any self respecting indian does, I bargained, and they agreed! Love them.

Silhouette wrote:

artood2 wrote:

Silhouette wrote:

artood2 wrote:
you are supposed to surrender your passport to Indian consulate. they used to ask for proof of surrender for OCI/PIO applications.

too bad i deleted part of my comment from last night on the indian bureaucrats.

no you are not required to submit your old indian passports and this renunciation process is very very recent. there was no such thing in the past.

anything to support that?

http://www.immihelp.com/nri/indian-citizenship-renunciation-surrender-certificate/

Yes. One, an official source. Two, personal knowledge.

Below is the link to application instructions for a PIO card from the indian consulate's official outsourcing agency Travisa.
https://indiavisa.travisaoutsourcing.com/pio/display-requirements

Look at # 8 where, as proof of your prior indian citizenship, they ask you to submit copies of your old indian passport that's obviously in your possession. There is no mention of surrendering the original passport.

Importantly, look at # 9, first two instructions for former nationals before June 2010. It is clear that these people are continuing to hold onto their former indian passports and not obligated to surrender.

I have two of my old indian passports with the knowledge and consent of the ny consulate for almost a decade now. Last night i had written and deleted a comment that when I switched my citizenship my indian passport was never marked cancelled by the NY consulars. I've been going to them regularly for peripheral paperwork such as birth certificate attestations and have carried proof of my current citizenship as a requirement. So they know. Though, in fairness to them once i was given a verbal instruction, 'tu iss passport par travel mat karna, accha?' to which i accha'ed.

I applied for my PIO card last year, didn't need renunciation, was grandfathered into older rules and handed back both my older passports by the consular. The PIO didn't make it on time so I applied for an urgent entry visa at travisa. Entry visa category is for people who were indian citizens at one point and therefore not technically tourists. But one has to demonstrate former indian citizenship and again I did that through my old indian passport. Again, got back the original. This was also instructed on the app.

Anyways, indian bureaucrats have their own rules separate and apart from the official rules. Therefore, forget surrendering, I'm still waiting for the consulars to mark my last indian passport as cancelled. My favorite story is when I applied for a long form birth certificate and got back a paper that didn't mention my place of birth. Ha, that was cute. No wait, they asked me to pay again to get it fixed! I did what any self respecting indian does, I bargained, and they agreed! Love them.

The surrender certificate requirements are mentioned in the link I posted above and a lot of that changed from May 2010. Dunno when they started implementing it strictly. The law that it is illegal to use your Indian passport after you acquired another citizenship has been there since 60s and even if passport is not surrendered, it is illegal to use it.

charvaka wrote:If there is, I don't think anything more is needed from Rahul Gandhi.

You have to get a declaration that you are qualified and not disqualified. Also you need to mention the place where you are on electoral rolls.

Having an Italian passport in the name that he was using then would have lowered the number of US government agencies that would need to know who he really is.

Very unlikely that he will get a visa under that name if he is son of PM.

This is true. And just like the Obama campaign answered the citizenship questions early on in the 2008 cycle, Rahul Gandhi will do well to clarify this matter.

The Obama situation was triggerred by selective/wrong/partial translation of what his grandmom said. Not sure what triggered the hunt in Rahul's case. I found that silly, I find this silly. The circumstances would suggest that it is much more likely to be an Indian citizenship rather than Italian and there is no evidence to the contrary. And when he filed his nominations papers he has given an undertaking that he is citizen of India.

We Indians confuse citizenship with ethnic origin all the time. That's because our culture is not as used to immigration as American culture is.

Yes and that is why it is silly when people well settled here end up calling him half-Italian.

artood2 wrote:
The surrender certificate requirements are mentioned in the link I posted above and a lot of that changed from May 2010. Dunno when they started implementing it strictly. The law that it is illegal to use your Indian passport after you acquired another citizenship has been there since 60s and even if passport is not surrendered, it is illegal to use it.

Well, if a lot has changed then we don't really know the nitty-gritty of the current rules, do we?

I was not contesting your theoretical point. Merely thinking out loud the practical implementations of it.

Silhouette wrote:

artood2 wrote:
The surrender certificate requirements are mentioned in the link I posted above and a lot of that changed from May 2010. Dunno when they started implementing it strictly. The law that it is illegal to use your Indian passport after you acquired another citizenship has been there since 60s and even if passport is not surrendered, it is illegal to use it.

Well, if a lot has changed then we don't really know the nitty-gritty of the current rules, do we?

I was not contesting your theoretical point. Merely thinking out loud the practical implementations of it.

I am not sure if you followed the news but there was a bit of hue and cry over "surrender certificate" rules in media and govt. relaxed the implementation for a while.

Suppose you run for office here, do they look at proof of your citizenship here or do they also ask for proof of surrender for other passports?

Silhouette wrote:I did what any self respecting indian does, I bargained, and they agreed! Love them.

artood2 wrote:
I am not sure if you followed the news but there was a bit of hue and cry over "surrender certificate" rules in media and govt. relaxed the implementation for a while.

Suppose you run for office here, do they look at proof of your citizenship here or do they also ask for proof of surrender for other passports?

No, on this particular issue most of my education is through personal and family experiences.

As for your question, for public office i'd be really surprised if there were exceptions to the citizenship requirement (though some bodies of federal govn. do permit non citizens to work under some very narrow exceptions).

But I have no idea re: proof of surrender of other passports. In case it matters, when you are naturalized you aren't required to submit proof on relinquishing your former citizenship.

Silhouette wrote:In case it matters, when you are naturalized you aren't required to submit proof on relinquishing your former citizenship.

But you are required to swear a formal Oath of Allegiance that has language renouncing any affiliation with any other state or nation. Doesn't that oath have the same legal effect as giving testimony "under oath" -- that is deliberately lying is an offense?

charvaka wrote:

Silhouette wrote:In case it matters, when you are naturalized you aren't required to submit proof on relinquishing your former citizenship.

But you are required to swear a formal Oath of Allegiance that has language renouncing any affiliation with any other state or nation. Doesn't that oath have the same legal effect as giving testimony "under oath" -- that is deliberately lying is an offense?

People swear that they are qualified for MP (meaning they are citizens of India) and they also take oath of allegiance to India/constitution when they get sworn in as MP.

artood2 wrote:People swear that they are qualified for MP (meaning they are citizens of India) and they also take oath of allegiance to India/constitution when they get sworn in as MP.

I don't know if the oath used in India has language renouncing allegiance to any other state. In other words, if someone is a natural born citizen of India, but has acquired another passport through the concept Silhouette mentioned (I forget the Latin term she used) I don't know if the oath / documents explicitly involve renouncing any such affiliations. I do remember hearing the oaths sworn by ministers, and that doesn't involve renouncing any other affiliations -- much like the regular oaths of office in the US.

charvaka wrote:

artood2 wrote:People swear that they are qualified for MP (meaning they are citizens of India) and they also take oath of allegiance to India/constitution when they get sworn in as MP.

I don't know if the oath used in India has language renouncing allegiance to any other state. In other words, if someone is a natural born citizen of India, but has acquired another passport through the concept Silhouette mentioned (I forget the Latin term she used) I don't know if the oath / documents explicitly involve renouncing any such affiliations. I do remember hearing the oaths sworn by ministers, and that doesn't involve renouncing any other affiliations -- much like the regular oaths of office in the US.

When you file nominations you say you are qualifed and not disqualified to do so. And you are disqualified if you become citizen of another country.

anyways, at the end of the day the oath is jsut that an oath. People do what they want to do. If LK Advani were to emigrate to Canada tomorrow what meaning that oath had? I think I am done with this topic.