I 102 Country Of Citizenship: Fill & Download for Free

Any person who is a Member of Parliament (MP) can become the Prime Minister. There is no additional qualification for being Prime Minister (of course, he must have majority support in Lok Sabha). The fact that Rahul Gandhi is an MP shows that he is eligible to become Prime Minister, provided, of course, that he can command support of majority of MPs in Lok Sabha.Rahul Gandhi was born in New Delhi on 19 June 1970. So, he is an Indian citizen. That’s how he has been able to be elected as MP. This is because as per Article 84 of the Constitution of India, a person cannot become a member of the Parliament unless he is a citizen of India.Now, it is also pertinent to point out that as per Article 102 of the Constitution, a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State.So, the only way Rahul Gandhi can be debarred from being MP (and consequently, from becoming PM) is if he has voluntarily acquired citizenship of another country, etc.Dr. Subramanian Swamy has been making allegations that Rahul Gandhi had shown himself as a British citizen in company documents of a British company. These allegations are in media for last few years. However, till date these allegations have not been proved. Had these allegations been proved, Rahul Gandhi would have lost his membership of the Parliament by virtue of Article 102 of the Constitution, as mentioned above.So, ultimately, it all boils down to the proof of the said allegations. The very fact that Rahul Gandhi continues to be an MP shows that he is a citizen of India or that till date allegations of his having acquired British citizenship have not been proved. It is understood from media reports that the Ethics Committee of Lok Sabha had sent a notice to Rahul Gandhi in the year 2016 on this issue. However, there appears to be no conclusion on this issue so far. The matter appears to be still pending. This gives an indication that there may not be solid proof for the allegations, otherwise, this issue would have been taken to a logical end; however, I refrain from making any conclusive comments as the issue still appears to be pending before the said committee.Therefore, as the things stand today, Rahul Gandhi is an Indian citizen. He is a sitting MP and can contest the next Lok Sabha election too. If his party (may be, along with other parties) can command majority support in Lok Sabha, he can become PM too. This legal position can change only if it is meanwhile proved that he has acquired UK citizenship as alleged by Dr. Subramanian Swamy or something similar proving that he is no more an Indian citizen.

There are two aspects to this questions, citizens versus non citizens. We’ve already established and settled, in Trop v. Dulles (356 US 86 ((1958)) that citizenship cannot be stripped for bad behavior. In the case of aliens to the united states (legal or illegal) they are here upon the sufferance of the receiving nation, and only have such rights that such a nation chooses to extend them. In the United States, these rights accorded are largely the same as the citizenry under the civil rights act of 1871.Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)Citizenship is not a license that expires upon misbehavior. The duties of citizenship are numerous, and the discharge of many of these obligations is essential to the security and wellbeing of the Nation. The citizen who fails to pay his taxes or to abide by the laws safeguarding the integrity of elections deals a dangerous blow to his country. But could a citizen be deprived of his nationality for evading these basic responsibilities of citizenship? In time of war, the citizen's duties include not only the military defense of the Nation, but also full participation in the manifold activities of the civilian ranks. Failure to perform any of these obligations may cause the Nation serious injury, and, in appropriate circumstances, the punishing power is available to deal with derelictions of duty. But citizenship is not lost every time a duty of citizenship is shirked. And the deprivation of citizenship Page 356 U. S. 93 is not a weapon that the Government may use to express its displeasure at a citizen's conduct, however reprehensible that conduct may be. As long as a person does not voluntarily renounce or abandon his citizenship, and this petitioner has done neither, I believe his fundamental right of citizenship is secure. On this ground alone, the judgment in this case should be reversed.It continues:We believe, as did Chief Judge Clark in the court below, [Footnote 33] that use of denationalization as a punishment is barred by the Eighth Amendment. There may be involved no physical mistreatment, no primitive torture. There is, instead, the total destruction of the individual's status in organized society. It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture, for it destroys for the individual the political existence that was centuries in the development. The punishment strips the citizen of his status in the national and international political community. His very existence is at the sufferance of the country in which he happens to find himself.While any one country may accord him some rights and, presumably, as long as he remained in this country, he would enjoy the limited rights of an alien, no country need do so, because he is stateless.Furthermore, his enjoyment of even the limited rights of an alien might be subject to termination Page 356 U. S. 102 at any time by reason of deportation. [Footnote 34] In short, the expatriate has lost the right to have rights. This punishment is offensive to cardinal principles for which the Constitution stands.It subjects the individual to a fate of ever-increasing fear and distress. He knows not what discriminations may be established against him, what proscriptions may be directed against him, and when and for what cause his existence in his native land may be terminated. He may be subject to banishment, a fate universally decried by civilized people.He is stateless, a condition deplored in the international community of democracies. [Footnote 35] It is no answer to suggest that all the disastrous consequences of this fate may not be brought to bear on a stateless person. The threat makes the punishment obnoxious. [Footnote 36] The civilized nations of the world are in virtual unanimity that statelessness is not to be imposed as punishment for crime.It is true that several countries prescribe expatriation in the event that their nationals engage in conduct in derogation of native allegiance. [Footnote 37] Even statutes of this sort are generally applicable primarily Page 356 U. S. 103 to naturalized citizens. But use of denationalization as punishment for crime is an entirely different matter. The United Nations' survey of the nationality laws of 84 nations of the world reveals that only two countries, the Philippines and Turkey, impose denationalization as a penalty for desertion. [Footnote 38]In this country, the Eighth Amendment forbids this to be done. In concluding, as we do, that the Eighth Amendment forbids Congress to punish by taking away citizenship, we are mindful of the gravity of the issue inevitably raised whenever the constitutionality of an Act of the National Legislature is challenged.No member of the Court believes that, in this case the statute before us can be construed to avoid the issue of constitutionality. That issue confronts us, and the task of resolving it is inescapably ours. This task requires the exercise of judgment, not the reliance upon personal preferences. Courts must not consider the wisdom of statutes, but neither can they sanction as being merely unwise that which the Constitution forbids.We are oath-bound to defend the Constitution. This obligation requires that congressional enactments be judged by the standards of the Constitution. The Judiciary has the duty of implementing the constitutional safeguards that protect individual rights. When the Government acts to take away the fundamental right of citizenship, the safeguards of the Constitution should be examined with special diligence.I.e. the jurisdiction has the right to determine who enters outside the citizenry, via the legal process, and the authority to terminate that entry via rules, regulations, and laws governing that authority. They cannot, however, denationalize their own citizens due to a belief in ‘bad behavior’ upon their part.Further, there are rules governing the punishments that may be done to citizens versus noncitizens. I.e. there cannot be different punishments (title 18, section 242, in the disjunctive clause regarding punishments) I.e. there can be no greater, nor lesser punishment for crimes for noncitizens versus citizens under the civil rights acts, and the removal from the country in such cases is due to the failure to abide by the laws, statutes, and regulations regarding entry and occupation within the country.That power over immigration in the United States is explicitly granted to the federal government, as an exclusive power from the states. The power over immigration also implies a cojoined power to expel individuals who are both noncitizens, and engaged in actions outside of the law or terms of entry.

Citizenship Amendment bill is going to be disaster for the India.Most of the Muslims of India will have no issue with this bill if National Register of Citizenship(NRC) will not going to implement all over the countryThis CAB+NRC would going to affect severely to not only economicaly backward muslims but also to other citizens.After NRC non muslim can get citizenship by CAB bill but what about illiterate and poor muslims who doesn't have documents. How he will proove.Government has never talk with Bangladesh about illegal imegrants. During BAN PM visit Our PM told, it is India’s internal Matter. It means they will going to keep all the non NRC people in the detention centre.If Indian muslim who was indigenously Indian failed to submit any document then he had no option but the detention centre.Many have thought about the second class citizenship but This bill is going to make the muslims stateless.There is no need to implement NRC to whole India, it will going to cost approx 5 LAKH crore rupees if considered with the cost of Assam NRC.There are many issues, elected government should focus on that issues first not on irrelevant things.Illegal migration is a major problem of north east states, It is not issue for whole over India.Edit1:Someone has argued that CAB doesn't voilate article 14 (equality before law), It has nothing to do with religion it only deals with minority class.According to constitution Class should be proper, you can't create different laws for different types of people. Like seprate law for Tall and seprate for dwarf, Men, women Black, white etc.If persecuted Minority is to be class then it should be all minorities of that three nations, irrespective of religion.If there are 54 countries for Muslims then 15 countries for Christians and 5–6 countries for Budhist which recognize Christianity and Buddhism as their state religion.Human rights for non Muslim refugee what about human rights of Non Nrc Muslims of Assam. Why don't govt Dialogue with Bangladesh. Many of them were poor Indian Muslims, Did sending them into Detention centre is a Huaman Right?Edit2:As I have already said implemention of only CAB bill doesn't matter to most of the Indian Muslims.NRC+CAB is dangerous. Suppose if any poor illiterate Indian Muslim or Non Muslim who don't have any valid document, failed to submit required documents. Then Non muslim can get citizenship via CAB but what about that Muslim fellow. He had No choice but the Detention Centre.If any single innocent Indian Citizen faces detention centre, because of Failed NRC procedure , who will take this responsibility?Conclusion:Why it is so necessary to implement NRC, it would be better to invest that 5 lakh crore rupees in some kind of investment rather than wasting tax payers money in the useless data collection. We all have seen failed NRC system in Assam.India has been facing lots of problems- unemployment, poor economy, we are at 102 position in global Hunger Index.Government should focus on above problems first rather than diverting citizens from real issues.