Until WWII it was normal to loose your citizenship when you apply for a second one.
That´s why the AR National Constitutions establishes low requirements for citizenship and that foreigners cannot be forced to get AR citizenship. That´s why in Argentina residency is an option to citizenship and not a previous step.
During WWII, Hitler cancel the citizenship of all the Jews creating the category of stateless. Loosing citizenship, they became people without rights and that´s how legally he slaved them and killed them.
That´s why the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights enacted just after the WWII established that citizenship is a right. It means that it cannot be taken away and the whole human right philosophy is about that you have rights because you are a human being instead because you are a citizen.
In this point, the Argentine National Constitution was almost a hundred years advanced to its time. Among other things because art. 20 and 14 recognize same civil rights to foreigners and citizens with the only requirement of having his home in Argentine soil.
You know that even nowadays in the US you have limited civil rights or none when you are not a citizen.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 15.
- (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
- (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
The fact is nowadays
citizenship is considered to be indispensable. This is Ius Cogens, it means, mandatory international common law. Even some countries still doesn´t accept it, it is only a matter of time to achieve a change.
But there is not a right to renounce your citizenship.
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/statelessness.htm
Article 6
If the law of a Contracting State provides for loss of its nationality by a person's spouse or children as a consequence of that person losing or being deprived of that nationality, such loss shall be conditional upon their possession or acquisition of another nationality.
Article 7
1. ( a ) If the law of a Contracting State entails loss or renunciation of nationality, such renunciation shall not result in loss of nationality unless the person concerned possesses or acquires another nationality;
( b ) The provisions of subparagraph ( a ) of this paragraph shall not apply where their application would be inconsistent with the principles stated in articles 13 and 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved on 10 December 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations.
2. A national of a Contracting State who seeks naturalization in a foreign country shall not lose his nationality unless he acquires or has been accorded assurance of acquiring the nationality of that foreign country.
3. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5 of this article, a national of a Contracting State shall not lose his nationality, so as to become stateless, on the ground of departure, residence abroad, failure to register or on any similar ground.
4. A naturalized person may lose his nationality on account of residence abroad for a period, not less than seven consecutive years, specified by the law of the Contracting State concerned if he fails to declare to the appropriate authority his intention to retain his nationality.
5. In the case of a national of a Contracting State, born outside its territory, the law of that State may make the retention of its nationality after the expiry of one year from his attaining his majority conditional upon residence at that time in the territory of the State or registration with the appropriate authority.
6. Except in the circumstances mentioned in this article, a person shall not lose the nationality of a Contracting State, if such loss would render him stateless, notwithstanding that such loss is not expressly prohibited by any other provision of this Convention.
And the only accepted ways to lose a citizenship are:
Article 8
1. A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of his nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, a person may be deprived of the nationality of a Contracting State:
( a ) In the circumstances in which, under paragraphs 4 and 5 of article 7, it is permissible that a person should lose his nationality;
( b ) Where the nationality has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this article, a Contracting State may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if at the time of signature, ratification or accession it specifies its retention of such right on one or more of the following grounds, being grounds existing in its national law at that time:
( a ) That, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the Contracting State, the person:
(i) Has, in disregard of an express prohibition by the Contracting State rendered or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive emoluments from, another State, or
(ii) Has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State;
( b ) That the person has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration, of allegiance to another State, or given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the Contracting State.
4. A Contracting State shall not exercise a power of deprivation permitted by paragraphs 2 or 3 of this article except in accordance with law, which shall provide for the person concerned the right to a fair hearing by a court or other independent body.
Just a few countries takes your citizenship away if you get a new one. None of them are/were precisely a land of freedom.
Former 3rd Reich (Germany), China, North Korea and Japan. All those counties has a bad record in their history regarding the lack of respect of human righs and freedom.
Germany has an special Court for applying for a permission for dual citizenship, however, the citizenship law of Germany is still too nazi.
China and North Korea need no further explanation.
Japan has its own nazionalism.
So, it is not bad that your homeland doesn´t allow you to quit your citizenship and I believe that it is regarding improper legal advice to try to resign the citizenship to avoid pay taxes. I think that the strategy should be different because dual taxation is confiscatory and using this argument it should be easier to win the case.
Regards
