When the State DENIES or Invalidates Your Passport: The Risk of Relying on a Single Nationality

Your passport is not really yours; your country of origin can decide to deny or invalidate this document, leaving you with no way out and no possibility of movement. This leaves anyone who depends on a single nationality in a situation of total vulnerability: unable to leave the country, unable to travel, and of course, with no option to obtain other residence permits or citizenship once the tap has been turned off. In this article, you will see why this happens, in which cases states exercise this power, and, above all, how you can protect yourself from this great power that states have over their citizens.

When one thinks of the advantages of having a second nationality, the first thing that comes to mind is the possibility of greater freedom to travel, work, and settle, especially in the country of a second nationality. However, the reasons for obtaining a second (or third) passport go much further and have to do, above all, with the need to guarantee personal freedom: protection against considerable restrictions and risks that may arise, for example, from political agendas, tax impositions, or geopolitical conflicts, when governments force citizens to participate in their disputes (or indirectly suffer the consequences of these).

The possible scenarios are endless. When a state finds itself in trouble, it is willing to do whatever it takes, and one of the greatest tools of pressure it has over its citizens is to prevent them from acquiring other passports or even to withdraw or refuse to issue passports so that nationals cannot escape its clutches.

To protect your personal freedom and avoid being extorted by any particular state, you must take precautions and protect yourself with special care. So today we want to show you not only the reasons for obtaining a second (third or fourth) citizenship, but also the ways to achieve it.

The term “nationality” is self-explanatory, as it describes “belonging” to a state. Unlike a relationship, choosing a profession, or buying our first home, this belonging has been given to us, as it is usually granted by birth. We have done nothing to deserve it, nor have we made any decisions about it. Consequently, nationality is not the result of our consent, nor is the choice of our name. Fortunately, we are not predetermined in this sense for life, and in this respect, we can also apply the Theory of Flags and avoid the weight of the state. Unlike a name, nationality influences not only our identity but above all our freedom.

So that what we describe here does not seem like mere theory, fantasy, or an unnecessarily alarmist scenario, let’s look at some practical examples from recent world political events.

Having additional passports can protect you from forced participation in geopolitical conflicts

Take the example of Ukraine: in times of war, the country has taken steps to mobilize enough men fit for military service to defend the country. However, as more and more men were leaving for abroad because they did not want to end up as cannon fodder in a war they had not chosen, Ukraine decided to crack down on the passports and mobility of “its” citizens. After the start of the war with Russia, a ban on leaving the country was initially introduced for men between the ages of 18 and 60. This measure meant that men in this age group could not leave the country without special permission. Ukrainian citizens thus became prisoners in their own country. And not only that: they are captives and their lives are in danger because a state has decided to use them for its own purposes.

In an emergency (or supposed emergency), the individual’s freedom of choice disappears and the value of individual life is lost.

The individual’s freedom of choice disappears overnight and the value of individual life is lost. In other words: in certain cases, those who are “only” in prison and do not have to fear for their lives can consider themselves lucky.

But that was not enough for Ukraine. The government in Kiev was not only annoyed by the many Ukrainian “citizens” who had left in time, but also by those who were already abroad before the outbreak of the conflict. This is confirmed by the Ukrainian Foreign Minister:

“In his comments on Tuesday about the suspension of consular services, Kuleba said it was incongruous for men subject to compulsory military service to live abroad and still want to receive state services. ‘Staying abroad does not exempt a citizen from his duties to the motherland,’ he wrote in X.”

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kyiv-says-passports-military-age-men-be-issued-only-ukraine-2024-04-24/

Therefore, anyone who is outside their “country of origin” is not exempt from their obligations to their country. As a result, Ukraine passed regulations prohibiting men subject to compulsory military service from applying for passports abroad.

Thus, applicants who were abroad and of military service age were deprived of their freedom of movement by being denied the issuance of valid identity documents. The only thing this group of people received at Ukrainian consulates and embassies were special certificates allowing them to return to Ukraine. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs made it clear that, in the future, passport applications would only be processed by state agencies and that private agencies would no longer be competent to do so. Those who did not take precautions in time find themselves in a rather delicate situation. This strategy shows how, in crisis situations, the state, in its meanness, can use control of passports and mobility to impose its national interests. In this case, even above life itself.

We know (from conflicts such as those in Ukraine and, before that, Yugoslavia) that Europe has not always been a place of peace and that the current period of tranquility, at least in Western Europe, is one of the longest in recent history. That such scenarios could occur in Western Europe in the event of military or other conflict is something that, in view of what has happened in other countries, should be taken very seriously. This brings us to the first compelling reason why it is worth expanding your portfolio of “affiliations” to a state.

Note: In case you are wondering, we are not making a judgment about who is to blame for the conflict between Ukraine and Russia; it is clear that it was the Russians who launched the attack (and from there, everyone can make their own judgment). We simply believe that, since “your life is your own,” no one but you has the right to put your integrity at risk. No state should be able to do that, no matter how much it may claim to be under attack.

Restrictions on freedom of movement due to unusual events or “urgent” political agendas

In so-called authoritarian states and regimes, repressing the opposition or expendable minorities is common practice. Examples abound, whether it be the Uighurs in China, the Rohingya minority in Myanmar, the Palestinians in numerous states, the inhabitants of Hong Kong, etc. Nationality is used as a means to systematically control, oppress, detain, or deprive people of their rights. The question that must be asked in light of recent global political events is always the same: when does a state act in an authoritarian manner?

At first glance, it may seem unlikely that discrimination based on belonging to a minority would occur in Spain, as it does in the countries or areas we have mentioned. But what happens when one acts in a manner that is “unfavorable” or contrary to the current political agenda? There are increasing cases of travelers with valid Russian visas not having their passports renewed, even though this clearly violates international law.

In general, passport laws and regulations are designed to confirm the identity and nationality of an applicant for entry, not to discriminate based on a political agenda (e.g., considering Russia an “enemy”). In principle, a passport serves only as an identity and travel document and should not be used to assess a person’s moral character.

We will go into more detail later, but the question here is whether, as in the United States, visiting a particular country could ultimately lead to a denial of entry. In other words, having visited Russia, China, Iran, Israel, or whatever country is involved could result in you being denied entry.

Whatever interpretation is given to these trends, one thing is certain: current trends are not moving in the direction of greater freedom and, above all, it will be very difficult to find reasons not to try to obtain a second passport in such a scenario.

When can the state refuse to issue my passport?

Here we will look at three different cases, those of Spain, Germany, and Argentina. In the end, we can conclude that the cases in which they can decide not to issue you a passport (or withdraw it) are always there and are quite similar.

In the case of Spain, Article 2.2 of Royal Decree 896/2003 establishes that a passport is a necessary document for leaving and entering national territory, although the law provides for cases of restriction:

• Denial by court order: Article 2.4 of the aforementioned Royal Decree states that “passports shall not be issued to those whose rights to free movement have been restricted by the judicial authorities.” Thus, only if a judge orders it in the context of criminal or civil proceedings (e.g., pretrial detention, precautionary measures, serving sentences, or prohibition from leaving the territory) can the Administration refuse to issue a passport.
• Withdrawal or precautionary withdrawal: Article 3 of Royal Decree 896/2003 allows for the withdrawal of a passport that has already been issued if there is a final court ruling restricting freedom of movement. The police enforce this measure by handing in the passport at the police station to prevent fraudulent use.
• Refusal in cases of doubtful or pending nationality: When there are serious doubts about the applicant’s Spanish nationality, or the person concerned is subject to a procedure for loss/deprivation of nationality, the issuance may be suspended as a precautionary measure until the situation is clarified.
• Minors and incapacitated persons: In the case of minors or persons with legally modified capacity, the express consent of those who have parental authority or legal representation is required. If this is not provided, the issuance may be denied.

On the other hand, in Argentina, the regulations on the refusal and issuance of passports are based mainly on Decree 261/2011, which regulates the issuance of Argentine passports, and on the actions of the National Directorate of the National Registry of Persons (Renaper). As in Spain, passport refusal is a restricted situation, based on very specific judicial or administrative grounds.

Article 7 of the Regulations for the Issuance of Passports summarizes the legal grounds on which the issuance of a passport may be denied:

• Having been sentenced to penalties or security measures that entail the deprivation or limitation of freedom of residence or movement, as long as they have not been extinguished, unless authorized by a court.
• Having an arrest warrant issued by a competent judicial authority or being in contempt of a criminal proceeding.
• When the judicial authority has prohibited the issuance or departure from the country with respect to the person concerned.

In essence, the restriction is applied for judicial reasons, whether by sentence, arrest warrant, or explicit precautionary measure prohibiting departure from the country.

And in the case of Germany, we have the Passport Act in Article 7, paragraph 1, of the PassG. This establishes the following:

(1) A passport shall be refused if there are facts that justify the suspicion that the applicant

1. endangers the internal or external security or other important interests of the Federal Republic of Germany;
2. intends to evade criminal prosecution or the enforcement of a sentence or the imposition or enforcement of a security measure involving deprivation of liberty and applicable under this Act;
3. intends to violate a provision of the Narcotics Act relating to the import, export, transit, or release of narcotics;
4. intends to evade his or her tax obligations or violate the provisions of customs and monopoly law or foreign trade law, or commit serious violations of import, export, or transit prohibitions or restrictions;
5. intends to evade a legal maintenance obligation;
6. intends to enlist without authorization in military service outside the German Armed Forces;
7. as a person subject to compulsory military service belonging to a generation that is being called up for service, intends to leave the Federal Republic of Germany for more than three months without the authorization of the district recruitment office required by Article 3(2) of the Compulsory Military Service Act;
8. as a person subject to compulsory military service, wishes to leave the Federal Republic of Germany without the authorization of the regional recruitment office required under Section 48(1)(5)(b) or Section 48(2) of the Compulsory Military Service Act;
9. as a recognized conscientious objector, without the authorization of the Federal Office for Civilian Service required under Section 23(4) of the Civilian Service Act, wishes to leave the Federal Republic of Germany for a period of more than three months;
10. is about to commit one of the acts described in Section 89a of the Criminal Code;
11. commits an act described in Section 226a of the Criminal Code or incites third parties to commit it;
12. commits an act abroad described in Sections 174, 176, 176a, 176b, 176c, 176d, or 182 of the Criminal Code.

Source: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/pa_g_1986/BJNR105370986.html

Section 7, paragraph 1, sentences 10 to 12 refer to many acts described in the German Criminal Code. For the sake of completeness and to enable us to understand this section in its entirety, we quote them here:

Section 89a of the German Criminal Code: Preparation of a serious violent act endangering the state

Section 226a of the German Criminal Code: Female genital mutilation

Sections 174, 176, 176a, 176b, 176c, 176d, and 182 of the German Criminal Code: Sexual criminal law (child abuse and child protection)

Section 7(1) of the PassG therefore contains a number of provisions designed to protect the general public and the safety of all. It is difficult to seriously question or reject any of these provisions in their essence. In particular, measures designed to protect the lives of others, prevent terrorist activities, or protect children from abuse are undoubtedly justified and in the interest of all. However, the real problem lies in the fact that the legal provisions are not limited to these essential and undoubtedly relevant aspects. And this is where the problem arises.

In short, if your country does not want you to move and you only have one citizenship, you are in a difficult situation.

The problem begins when undoubtedly correct rules are used to legitimize undoubtedly incorrect rules.

In the end, we find that any state will be able to decide that whatever we do is or has been illegal and that, therefore, it will not issue us a passport (remember that in the end it is the state itself that decides what is or is not legal). Thus, reasons that might seem legitimate for denying a passport (a judge finding you guilty of murder and fearing you might flee, for example) can become something unquestionably immoral (finding you guilty of an alleged hate crime for not addressing someone by their preferred pronoun or for saying you are against illegal immigration).

Furthermore, in many countries there are provisions that could be used to deny passports to people on mere suspicion or in unclear situations, which would jeopardize the balance between general security and fundamental individual rights. This is especially true when phrases referring to ideas such as “protecting the interests of the state” and the like appear.

Incidentally, there are countries that can deny a passport to anyone who “fails to meet their tax obligations.” One of the countries best known for this is the United States, but it can also happen in Germany, as we have seen, and in general, if the tax authorities go to court and obtain a ruling, in most countries you would be denied a passport. In other words, something as legitimate as trying to prevent the state from stealing what is yours could end up with you being punished, without a passport and, of course, imprisoned.

At what point could we consider a state to be authoritarian?

The “authoritarian states” referred to above are familiar with the use of restrictions of this kind, but, to be fair, we must ask ourselves at what point a state is considered authoritarian and what makes it so. Here, too, we could cite examples of countries such as North Korea or Bahrain.

However, since these countries do not pose a “real danger” to the lives of most readers, let us turn to an example from the Western world, again from recent history.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia, for example, implemented some of the toughest measures in the world, which can be considered the most drastic restrictions on personal freedom. Cities such as Melbourne spent almost 260 days in lockdown, one of the longest periods in the world. During that time, citizens were only allowed to leave their homes for a few hours and under strict conditions.

Worse still, such a strict travel ban was imposed that Australians were unable to leave their “own” country for almost two years. Freedom of movement was thus greatly restricted. To illustrate what this can mean in practice: many people did not see their relatives living abroad again during that time, when, for example, they fell ill or died. Families were separated, parents did not see their children grow up. And Australians who were abroad often stayed there, as those returning to Australia had to isolate themselves in very expensive quarantine hotels, bearing the costs themselves, if they could find flights, which were completely excessive. Only people who were not Australian citizens were allowed to leave Australia.

Once again, it is clear that diversification would have prevented this situation. And the question arises: isn’t it deeply authoritarian for a state to reserve the right to decide the fate of “its” citizens? So when is a state authoritarian? Only when it prevents its citizens from leaving the country because of a pandemic? Or perhaps it is already authoritarian when it forces you to pay a tax that you have not consented to?

So, before you tie yourself to someone forever, make sure you have chosen wisely.

In the poem “The Song of the Bell,” Friedrich Schiller already warned against hasty decisions that compromise life with the phrase, “Look who makes lasting vows, if his heart agrees with the one he chooses.” The writer was referring to marriage, but we could apply this even more strongly to belonging to a state. Keep in mind that, nowadays, it is usually easier to divorce your partner than to leave behind the ties to your country of origin.

In the case of nationality, we must start from the premise of a forced marriage, but, despite everything, as in marriage, we have the possibility of terminating this contract.

In general, instead of making a clean break with our country of origin, it often makes more sense to acquire other “affiliations.” Breaking the legal bond between a person and a state only makes sense in rare cases, and even then, it is only possible if you have a second nationality. Few countries allow you to renounce your nationality if you do not have a second one.

At what moment might it make sense to renounce citizenship?

Let’s address the issue of taxes: Worldwide taxation, as practiced in the United States, means that citizens are subject to taxes worldwide, regardless of their place of residence. Therefore, U.S. citizens must pay taxes in the United States even if they live permanently abroad. This system, known as “citizenship-based taxation” (CBT), differs from most other countries, which generally only tax their citizens if they reside in the country. All income, regardless of where it is earned, is subject to taxation in the country of origin.

In Spain, worldwide taxation according to the US model, in which citizens are subject to taxes worldwide regardless of their place of residence, does not exist as such. They do have an exit tax or an obligation to continue paying taxes in Spain if you move to a country considered a tax haven (similar to what happens in Mexico), but despite ongoing debates and isolated proposals, this is not a reality in Spain (in Canada, France, or Germany, they would be much closer to this).

The likelihood of a system similar to that of the US being implemented in Spain (or any other European country) is relatively low, as the bureaucratic effort would be enormous, just think of the changes that would have to be made to all double taxation agreements and at the level of European regulations. However, this scenario should not be ruled out, as political changes and agendas, although they sometimes take years to materialize, can always enter the political debate. Do you think that if a political party or pressure group started pointing out that the rich are to blame for everything and that they should not be allowed to avoid taxes by changing their residence, the majority of the population would not end up supporting their proposals?

In this context, too, the saying “better safe than sorry” would apply. Once again, expanding your portfolio of possibilities redounds to your own freedom and security.

Now, if you would like more information on the subject of citizenship, please contact us. We have solutions that will help you obtain a second citizenship in a completely legal and secure manner.

There are many different paths, some are fast, some are cheap, and some are simple. In general, you will have to choose two of the three characteristics mentioned, although for some lucky ones, you can have it all (citizenship by descent or by being born in certain countries).

Considering that most Spanish speakers can have more than one citizenship without any problems (if you are Spanish, Argentine, or Mexican, for example, you will have no problems), everyone should take advantage of this opportunity. If you want to start working on your second passport, please contact us.