º£½ÇÂÒÂ×

But if your dual citizen here you can come and go as you please, the Philippines doesn't want a foreigner who has become a Filipino to have that right, they want complete control, i know a few expats who have been here over 20 years and speak fluent, but they all say the same thing if I become a citizen they control my ability to leave

capricornrising wrote:

Okie-Sure doesn't seem very fair to me. Philippino can go to America and live there a number of years and obtain US citizenship thus dual in their own country. A foreigner in the Philippines can not become a citizen in the Philippines. Only if they are born here.Go figure!

Well. I have understanding for they dont want to make it to easy for foreigners to become Filipino citizem concerning owning LAND
BUTt the Philippines LOSE to get some investors and by that dont get these extra jobs by the limitations they have not leting foreigners have majority in a BUSINESS (except "export business"). Because when the foreigner dont have majority in votes then Filipinos can screw up, which make foreigners less interested in investing.
(I dont like neither when SWEDES have had majority screwing up voting me down in Swedish businesses. That have happened twice with crap results, while I have never failed in business when I have had majority power...)

And law saying businesses (except "export business") arent allowed to be dominated by foreigner KNOWLEDGE, thats realy STUPID, because why would foreigners invest money, which would be lost by the business get screwed up by missing knowledge, which the investor foreigner have...?!
(I got this SOLVED though, when I finaly after 8 YEARS found a Filipino with enough knowledge in such business so the essential knowledge, which very few Filipinos have in such business (!!!) , I have is a minority part of the needed knowledge so the law could be followed. ( I found two Filipinos with enough knowledge some earlier but they were allready occupied in their own businesses, which are among the very few well handled such businesses in the Philippines.)
So several years got WASTED by that stupid law, and if I hadnt found any Filipino with enough such knowledge, then that investment, business start and adding of jobs to Filipinos would have never happened and would have been LOST for the Philippines...
Although the jobs arent added yet by the officials are very slow at giving the 4th and last needed permit  to be allowed to start the production work... Actualy the permit handling have been so slow so we need to RENEW two of the goten permits before we got chance to use them   

Fred wrote:

Given the country had two colonial occupiers both of whom oppressed, murdered stole, raped, and generally made the locals feel crap, it isn't much of a shock.

Ask any very old Filipino who is still alive how they feel about that "occupier" Douglas MacArthur.

wow.. ain't that the truth...  talk about giving us today a bad name which we (you and me) had nothing to do with that years ago

Enzyte Bob wrote:

Fred wrote:

Given the country had two colonial occupiers both of whom oppressed, murdered stole, raped, and generally made the locals feel crap, it isn't much of a shock.

Ask any very old Filipino who is still alive how they feel about that "occupier" Douglas MacArthur.

After what the Japanese did, that's hardly a surprise, but the US committed massive atrocities when they were fighting to colonise the islands and, after the treaty of Paris, US forces murdered thousands of locals when they destroyed whole cities in order to subdue the population.

However, much as some would like to see such horrible war crimes disappear, it's very possibly part of the reasoning foreigners are being denied dual citizenship. Dutch atrocities in Indonesia are very much part of the reason Indonesia refuses to accept dual citizenship so the same might very well be true in the Philippines.
One would have to explore the subject properly to be sure.

tpiro wrote:

wow.. ain't that the truth...  talk about giving us today a bad name which we (you and me) had nothing to do with that years ago

History is like that. Tell an ultra right wing US citizen he can't have a gun and he'll quote a document from 1791.
History shapes today.

It's just a rite of passage.  Same as with most countries where people born there have more rights than those that migrated there. 

But as kids get born into that country they moved into, the kids inherit the rights as any have.  Kids can buy and own land, become presidents, etc.

Fred wrote:

Tell an ultra right wing US citizen he can't have a gun and he'll quote a document from 1791. History shapes today.

Millions and millions of Americans own guns, so owning a gun means you are an Ultra Right Wing American?

Because you don't agree with the second amendment, I guess the US should do away with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Amendments are possible, it has been done 27 times over the last 234 years.

Enzyte Bob wrote:

Millions and millions of Americans own guns, so owning a gun means you are an Ultra Right Wing American?

Because you don't agree with the second amendment, I guess the US should do away with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

First point - I didn't say all gun owners, but the Karens tend to be the ultra right.

As for the second, I didn't express an opinion - you made that up.

The point is, history plays a big part in today's attitudes.

Fred wrote:

Enzyte Bob wrote:

Millions and millions of Americans own guns, so owning a gun means you are an Ultra Right Wing American?

Because you don't agree with the second amendment, I guess the US should do away with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

First point - I didn't say all gun owners, but the Karens tend to be the ultra right.

As for the second, I didn't express an opinion - you made that up.

The point is, history plays a big part in today's attitudes.

You certainly do have an opinion, calling Karens (women) tending to be ultra right,
is an opinion. Karens are women, Kens are men.

Also you can have (Karens/Kens) be Ultra left or anywhere between, except you point the finger in one direction so that is an opinion.

Now you being a moderated and lambasting anyone off topic sometimes putting their posts under review, why not do it to yourself

My one and only point is history commonly dertimines what happens today.
In this case, Spanish an US attrocities.

As for Karens, the definition varies depending on which Youtube channels you watch.

Fred wrote:

My one and only point is history commonly dertimines what happens today.
In this case, Spanish an US attrocities.

Police in England carry whistles while Police in Australia carry guns.

Interesting thought, you being from England and your forebears deporting all their criminals to OZ.

capricornrising wrote:

Okie-Sure doesn't seem very fair to me. Philippino can go to America and live there a number of years and obtain US citizenship thus dual in their own country. A foreigner in the Philippines can not become a citizen in the Philippines. Only if they are born here.Go figure!

Foreigners CAN become a citizen of the Philippines. But they have to apply for it and meet certain requirements. And they would have to renounce the citizenship from the country / countries for which they have a citizenship.

In the same way that . . .

Foreigners CAN become a citizen of America. But they have to apply for it and meet certain requirements. And they would have to renounce the citizenship from the country / countries for which they have a citizenship.

What is unfair about that?

--------

Let me use a metaphor to describe what Philippine dual citizenship is.

Philippine citizenship is like a deed or a title, which states what special rights to which the bearer is entitled in the Philippines. I was given that "deed" because I have at least one parent who is Filipino. Also, I was born here.

Later on in my life, I decided that I would also want a similar deed, but for American rights and privileges. But America had certain conditions: that I "burn" the Philippine deed to get an American deed, which I agreed to do in 2001. If I decided to get back full rights and privileges from the Philippine deed, the Philippine government would require first that I burn the American deed.

But that changed in 2003. In 2003, the Philippine government changed its mind, and announced that they can restore the burnt Philippine deeds as good as new. And, for those who used to have one, they can apply to own a restored copy. And this is the best part: they don't have to burn their deeds from other countries. I applied. So, I now have both deeds from America and the Philippines. And both the US and Philippine governments are fine with that.

My husband has an American deed. He was born in America to American parents. He's lived here in the Philippines for quite some time. He CAN apply for the Philippine deed because he's qualified through judicial naturalization. But he would have to burn his American deed (which is fair, because America requires that too from those applying for the American deed).  But if he gets a Philippine deed through judicial naturalization, and wants to get an American deed, he would have to burn the Philippine deed, as required by America.

If my husband wants to get a dual citizenship, he might first have to petition that a law in the US be passed that's similar to the one passed in the Philippines (The Philippine Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Law of 2003 (RA 9225))  - give former citizens the chance to re-acquire their citizenship without renouncing their current one. Considering the workings of the American legislative system, by the time something of that nature gets passed, my husband would have already passed.

mauovernet wrote:

If I marry my Filipino girlfriend in April 2021, I can stay unlimited for life living there. MAKE A FAMILY ..... in the Philippines,?
Or would I have to be leaving from time to time, outside the Philippines, and enter again?
thansk !!!!

When I visited my Filipina girlfriend in 2019, I proposed and she accepted.  Then we tried to get married in the Philippines.  The process was long and involved and had certain restrictions and there wasn't enough time before I had to return home to the U.S.  Later that year she visited me in the U.S. and we got married.  While still in the U.S. I obtained my 13a visa (marriage).   It is a provisional visa -- good for 1 year.  She returned to the Philippines a month later.

Then the pandemic hit and I couldn't get to the Philippines to complete the visa process.  We were able, by a miracle, to get her to the U.S. 8 months later.  We had to prove to immigration that her trip would be essential so we came up with plenty of proof.  I prayed about it and I thought that she would be rejected at the airport in Manila by the immigration officer.  But the Lord showed me that the supervisor would be consulted and would allow her to board.  Sure enough, that is exactly what happened!

She lived with me for 5 months, then in March of 2021 I retired and we emigrated to the Philippines.  I then had to obtain a Philippine Bureau of Quarantine stamp in order to complete the immigration process.  To do this I had to travel to Cebu in between the numerous restriction dates.  Then I had to apply for a Philippine alien registration card (ACR-I) after we returned to Tacloban City.  It took months for them to give it to me.  I have to renew the ACR-I card every year in the first 90 days of the year, so I'll be visiting the Bureau of Immigration here in Tacloban City very soon.  The visa is for life, the renewal of the ACR-I is every year.  I think 3 or 5 years from now I have to do something different to maintain the ACR-I card or visa.  We'll see.

Fred wrote:

Given the country had two colonial occupiers both of whom oppressed, murdered stole, raped, and generally made the locals feel crap, it isn't much of a shock.

The Philippines actually had three colonial occupiers: Spain, America, and Japan. During World War II, the Japanese occupied the Philippines for 3 years.

The difference a Filipino can return to the Philippines and regain their Filipino citizenship, a American cannot renounce his citizenship and return to the USA and regain it

FilAmericanMom wrote:

The Philippines actually had three colonial occupiers: Spain, America, and Japan. During World War II, the Japanese occupied the Philippines for 3 years.

I didn't bother with the Japanese as they were there for such a short time and were war occupiers rather than long term colonists. That isn't to excuse their many crimes in any way. Like the US and Spain, I gather japan has yet to officially apologise for what they did.

However, the suggestion remains - Does the official attitude regarding citizenship have roots in the terrors and crimes of colonial occupation?

I know it does In Indonesia.

Fred wrote:

I didn't bother with the Japanese as they were there for such a short time and were war occupiers rather than long term colonists.

Hence you forget the Japanese were driven out by a previous long term colonist and Japan would have then been a long term occupier too.

Just think of all those Toyota's & Honda's vehicles and electronics from Sony the Philippines missed out of being a part of.

Damn those Allies

Enzyte Bob wrote:

Fred wrote:

I didn't bother with the Japanese as they were there for such a short time and were war occupiers rather than long term colonists.

Hence you forget the Japanese were driven out by a previous long term colonist and Japan would have then been a long term occupier too.

Just think of all those Toyota's & Honda's vehicles and electronics from Sony the Philippines missed out of being a part of.

Damn those Allies

Retaking a colonial outpost is hardly philanthropic. However, much as you're trying to throw the suggestion off topic, the facts remain, as does the suggestion.
Countries that suffered colonial occupation and mass brutality from those invading forces are commonly against those who occupied them, or at least very careful.
That might very well reflect in immigration rules

Fred wrote:

Countries that suffered colonial occupation and mass brutality from those invading forces are commonly against those who occupied them, or at least very careful.
That might very well reflect in immigration rules

Dont Americans have some more better Visa options than other foreigners have?

coach53 wrote:

Fred wrote:

Countries that suffered colonial occupation and mass brutality from those invading forces are commonly against those who occupied them, or at least very careful.
That might very well reflect in immigration rules

Dont Americans have some more better Visa options than other foreigners have?

Absolutely no clue. The seeming unfairness of citizenship rules was brought up, that reminding me of the reasons Indonesia has a similar, if tighter, policy that stems from Dutch (and English for a few years) rule.
It struck me the same might well apply to the Filly penes.

coach53 wrote:

Fred wrote:

Countries that suffered colonial occupation and mass brutality from those invading forces are commonly against those who occupied them, or at least very careful.
That might very well reflect in immigration rules

Dont Americans have some more better Visa options than other foreigners have?

I believe so, just anecdotally and through my own experiences over the years. Never any hassles at immigration and even some slack cut from time to time. Americans seem to be fairly highly regarded by most average Filipinos who absorbed a lot of American culture in the period since WW II, again, just based on my experience. Heck, my woman is constantly humming and singing American pop songs from the 70's and 80's, lol. It's what she grew up with. That's not to say that some more educated Filipinos don't remember and resent some of the more despicable things that happened under American leadership after we took over the Philippines from the Spanish.