User talk:JAJ

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
Picture tutorial
How to write a great article
Naming conventions
Manual of Style
Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Immunity from deportation

Hey JAJ. Have noted your work on nationalities, and saw something on New Zealand nationality law that intrigued me, namely that NZ citizens have "immunity from deportation". Does that mean that a New Zealander wanted by, say, police in the US, can not be deported to that country? Or have I misinterpreted? Cheers. Moriori 01:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

it only means immunity from deportation from New Zealand. This does not stop New Zealanders being extradited if a treaty exists to allow this, however they would be able to return to NZ after serving their sentence. NZ cannot exclude a citizen no matter how severe that person's criminal record is. JAJ 01:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I see the distinction. Cheers. Moriori 03:11, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Canadian citizenship

I am aware of Ireland's membership of the Commonwealth until 1949, and did not assert that Canada was the first member of the Commonwealth to have introduced its own citizenship - my editing was simply to remove the reference to British Commonwealth, or to qualify it as 'the then British Commonwealth'.

Quiensabe 15-09-2005 22:40 UTC

Thanks for the reply. I had got a contrary impression on first reading. JAJ 10:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electress Sophia

I see what you mean with your edit with regards to this, I misunderstood your post. I now agree with what you said, and removed section back. Sorry about that. BTW, how do you know so much about nationality law? Astrotrain 18:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Nationality law is an interest of mine, I've been studying it for many years. JAJ 10:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US Citizenship

I'm just pasting this from my talk page where you initially sent a question.

'Having been born in the US, I decided to give up citizenship based on the fact that I was required to file for US taxes and was told I could not serve in HM Forces (which is a violation of US citizenship, as I was not required to serve). Similarly, since I live in the UK and have no intention of residing in the US, I thought it was somewhat pointless retaining two citizenships. However, as I do not hold a US passport, and have served in a 'foreign armed forces', I do not qualify for US citizenship automatically, so no declaration at an embassy was required. Nick Kerr 17:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)'[reply]

Oh, and the other thing was that while the UK does not require loss by foreign nationality to retain British citzenship, the UK does not allow some nationals to service in various branches of government. For instance, a dual national may not serve in the Submarine Service, nor may dual nationals serve in the Regular Forces. Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens are allowed to join the armed forces, but may not serve in all branches of the armed forces (an Irish citizen may serve in the British Army, but only British citizens may join the Submarine Service). So the possession of dual nationality is a hinderance in certain careers, as well as a right nuissance in many cases =) Nick Kerr 17:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Icelandic nationality law

"the father is an Icelandic citzen and married to the mother (except in cases where the couple were separated at the time the child was conceived)."

How could the child be concieved when they're seperated? --Rory0 96 02:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, however it appears to be in the Icelandic Nationality Act, Article 1.

I suppose that the couple could be legally separated at the time of the child's conception. What effect, if any, the conception would have on the legal status of the separation would depend on Icelandic law concerning marriage, divorce and defacto marriage/partnership. My guess is, however, that it would have no effect. RW 3 April 2006

LOL -- Knowing Icelandic society to some degree, I have to say this circumstance is not surprising in the slightest.

Actually, the reason I'm writing is to thank you for writing up Icelandic Nationality Law so nicely, I didn't expect to find it on Wikipedia. Thanks for a well-written and useful article. Best regards, Icemuon 23:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British nationality

Hello there. Your extensive comments on British nationaliry at the Emilio Palma article seam to be somehow disconnected to the article itself. You make no comments on the actual status of Palma, nor the implications of the British law on his case. Perhaps such information should be placed in some other article, say British Antarctic Territory, or at least be compacted and associated with Palma. Thank you and good wiking. Mariano(t/c) 06:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article's now altered to make it clear that Mr Palma (apparently) has a fairly unique status in British law as a result of his birth in that Territory. Had he been born in 1983 or later he would not have had British nationality this way, but the law was different before then. JAJ 04:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czech nationality law

You're quick! Isn't it 12:43 am here in Sydney? And I was wondering what those Latin words for the concepts were, jus soli and jus sanguinis and what's not. +Hexagon1 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm happy to see you have been contributing to nationality law pages! I have written a number of them as well. (User_talk:Mediterraneo).

Ancestry Visa

Hi, I left a comment on the talk page clarifying the reasons for my proposal to move the page. Would you mind reviewing this to see whether you might change your position. Thanks--Spartaz 16:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Page now moved. i would be grateful if you could review the change when you have time and let me know of any follow up work that i have missed or whether you have any issues with the changes. Regards --Spartaz 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee. It doesn't list you as a party, but you may wish to add yourself. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland and, if you wish, add you name and indicate that you agree to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British honours system

I've removed your fact marker as the statement it was originally added to was simply wrong anyway. The version I've put may still need a citation but there probably won't be one suitable. As to the no hereditary peerages fact again 3 creations (two of which were for people with no children) puts us back to one non royal creation in forty years. I rather think we can state that as custom without ciation. I'll have a look again when I have time but the article has so many serious errors that need fixing asap. Alci12 17:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch nationality law

You changed back a correction which I made recently (from another IP address). The Dutch law has a kind of double ius soli . See article 3, member 3 of the law:

Nederlander is het kind van een vader of moeder die ten tijde van de geboorte van het kind zijn of haar hoofdverblijf heeft in Nederland, de Nederlandse Antillen of Aruba en die zelf geboren is als kind van een vader of moeder die ten tijde van zijn of haar geboorte in een van die landen hoofdverblijf had, mits het kind ten tijde van zijn geboorte zijn hoofdverblijf heeft in Nederland, de Nederlandse Antillen of Aruba.

This page makes no reference to acquiring Dutch citizenship by birth in the Netherlands to non-citizen parents. Please provide an official reference in English to support your claim. JAJ 04:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source you quoted - an embassy - provides information for Dutch abroad, not complete information on all details of the law. See full text of the law http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/0252_Rijkswet_op_het_Nederlanderschap_RWN.htm . I already quoted the relevant article. It translates into:

Dutch citizen is the child of a father or mother who at the time of the birth of the child has his or her main residence in the Netherlands, the Dutch Antilles or Aruba and who (him/her)self was born as a child of a father or mother who, at the time of his or her birth, had main residence in one of these countries, providing that the child, at the time of his or her birth, had main residence in the Netherlands, the Dutch Antilles or Aruba.

There is no proof that that article is correct. Please provide an official source in order to be credible. JAJ 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.st-ab.nl is a reliable source for full texts of the Dutch laws, which I consider definitely more reliable than any summary of the law. If you publish about Dutch law, the only reliable source is the text of the law. For extra verification of the text see the official government site http://wetten.overheid.nl/cgi-bin/deeplink/law1/title=Rijkswet%20op%20het%20Nederlanderschap . See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English .

BIOT

Thanks for clearing up the section on the British Indian Ocean Territory in the Special member state territories and their relations with the European Union article. More thoughts are on the talk page; I will have to do more reading to see how many Chagossians have British citizenship and BOTC toghther and how many have BOTC alone. Thanks again. - Thanks, Hoshie 02:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:British passport

Even though this is long time ago that you left that message, maybe I can try to clear it up a bit...

As you might well be aware of, all heads of state (and usually heads of government and foreign affairs ministers) will be granted special status (so long there are diplomatic relations between the two countries) and thus they will not be required to undergo immigration control and the need of passport is eliminated.

It is thus, very unlikely that any HoS or HoG will carry a passport and this includes the Governors-General of all Commonwealth Realms since they are the de facto head of state of that country.

I've sent emails to 3 GGs and I'll let you know the reply once I receive them.

Reply 1: Dianne Callahan (Official Secretary to the Governor-General) "Yes, the Governor-General is issued with an Australian passport"

Reply 2: Yes, Governor General of Canada does hold a Canadian Passport.

Cheers,--Cahk 02:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British nationality law and the Irish

Hey JAJ,

I've gotten into an argument with User:Gaimhreadhan over the ability of Irish citizens to claim CUKC status after 1948 in Talk:Common Travel Area. Any input you might have would be appreciated. Caveat lector 14:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect relevance

It will be interesting to see you show why Whitelaw's remarks are or were irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC) You do not seem to like my remarks about British racialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question about gaining British citizenship

Hi JAJ!

My fiance is going about applying to Register as a British national - her mother is British, and she was born before 1983, so it's apparent that she's eligible to apply for Registration via the UK Mother form.

However, part of the British citizenship article (which you've obviously contributed greatly to!) has stopped us in our tracks. Namely, "However those with permanent resident status in the UK, or entitled to Right of Abode, may instead prefer to seek naturalisation as a British citizen which gives transmissible British citizenship otherwise than by descent".

Now, obviously she DOES have Right of Abode, but we've not sure what the last part of this quote means - "transmissable British citizenship OTHERWISE than by descent". How is it that being Registered would be in any way different (or indeed, less desirable) than being naturalised? And would the naturalisation require the standard 5 years of living in the UK to be valid?

What we're hoping to do is get her Registered (and get a UK passport) in the next few months. We're getting married in April 2009. And around June 2009, we are hoping to move to the UK for a few years to do IT work for a 'life experience' sort of thing.

So, if anyone could clarify what would be the best method for us to get registered, and then legally, both be able to reside and work in the UK, we'd both appreciate it.

Thanks mate! cmdwedge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmdwedge (talk • contribs) 05:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that a naturalised British citizen who has a child born in somewhere like Australia will be able to pass on British citizenship to the child, while a citizen who registers through the provision you mention will not necessarily be able to do so. However, it takes 5 years in the U.K. to become naturalised British.

In your situation, if she registers as British now, then you can (if you get married) become naturalised British after 3 years in the U.K. (not 5). And if you later on return to Australia or Canada, any future children can get their British citizenship from you instead of her. So it may make sense for her to go ahead and get her British citizenship now. JAJ (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JAJ, you're a genius. Thanks very much for your help - we'll do exactly that (get her Registered and go from there). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmdwedge (talk • contribs) 06:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IoM citizenship

Thanks for your reply re the above on the British nationality talk page. I have posted a reply for those who (maybe you!) who would like to improve WP on this point. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Poms

I see that you were an early contributor to the above and believe that you wrote the final paragraph of "Details", which deals with citizenship. I've just been tidying up the article and added enough citations to feel able to remove the banner about their lack. However, I can't find a source for that final paragraph although I've waded though footnotes in other articles. I have put the "citation needed" marker after the paragraph in question and wonder whether you are able to add the necessary citation. (As a matter of possible interest, I was in the British MN in the late 1950s and a crew member of SS Orontes, which brought out many migrants.) Thanks in advance. Mikeo1938 (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ÓCorcráin (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use in Australia discussion

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery