I don't see WHY it should matter the "intention expressed" when arriving in the U.S.A. I don't even see why it should matter HOW or WHERE they were resident, since you can base your claim in section 2) rather than 1) a),b),c) or d). and section 2) says:

2) a person who was born on the territory of The Polish State, as far as it is not entitled to another country’s citizenship.

It is absolutely clear beyond any doubt that in this section there is NOT any specific requirement of residency (nor whether before or after 1920), in order to be recognized as a Polish Citizen. ( please correct me if what I'm saying is wrong).


There is also section 3) which says:

3) is entitled to polish citizenship based upon international treaties.

I can't give an opinion on the latter since I don't know which international treaties were in place at that time.

 

My personal feeling is that yes, per the law this is technically the case where all people living in what became Poland are eligible and their descendants. I also believe that in practice, the sheer numbers of people who would be technically eligible are far far greater and it would place a heavy burden on the government to recognize all of these probably tens of thousands of more people on an already over-worked system. In light of that, it seems the government in general has elected, unofficially, to interpret that in the most conservative way possible. I don't know how the Polish government works, but I would assume based on US laws that the only way to get that changed is the challenge it in court, which would set a precedent and then open the way for everyone else. And to do all that, you've got to really want to become a Polish citizen!

Similarly, why didn't the government make the 1951 citizenship act retroactive, thus allowing people who emigrated and became citizens abroad beforehand to regain citizenship? Probably because that would mean many many many people would be eligible. (It's also possible, but not likely in my opinion, that they didn't do this because it could also set precedent by them negating a previous act versus simply changing them through the normal course of law.)

If it were me, and I was one of these attorneys, I would do it for free on behalf of a client, because if I were successful, it would be free advertising on a major level, at least within the citizenship community.

That's just my perspective, though.

 

I have found some information about women citizenship and losing it upon marriage.

The Hague Convention 1930 which Poland is a member of states:

"NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN
Article 8
If the national law of the wife causes her to lose her nationality on marriage with a foreigner, this consequence shall be conditional on her acquiring the nationality of the husband.

Article 9
If the national law of the wife causes her to lose her nationality upon a change in the nationality of her husband occurring during marriage, this consequence shall be conditional on her acquiring her husband's new nationality.

Article 10
Naturalisation of the husband during marriage shall not involve a change in the nationality of the wife except with her consent.

Article 11
The wife who, under the law of her country, lost her nationality on marriage shall not recover it after the dissolution of the marriage except on her own application and in accordance with the law of that country. If she does recover it, she shall lose the
nationality which she acquired by reason of the marriage."

Here is the link http://www.coe.int/t/e/legal_affairs/le ... 4_1930.pdf

Here is the link for member states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conf ... tional_Law

It seems that women did not lose their citizenship upon marriage in countries such as US and Canada because women did not get citizenship from US or Canada through marriage.

Any thoughts?

 

That's correct, but I believe the issue most had is that only a Polish female in their ancestry had (verifiable) Polish citizenship, and had nothing to do with marriage per say.

Since most here are probably Catholic or Jewish, I'll draw a parallel to them. In these religions, the CHILD is, at birth, the religion of the MOTHER, regardless of who or what the father is. This is the opposite in Polish nationality law prior to 1951. The CHILD is the citizen of the country that the FATHER is, regardless of who or what the mother is.

 

I think that's their point though. They say my great-grandparents were not born on the 'territory of The Polish State' - but that they were born on the territory of the Kingdom of Poland. It so happens they were born on territory that would become the territory of Poland, but when they were born, it wasn't Poland.

The law does not state 'born on the territory that would become The Polish State.'

On the other hand, I also see how the simple phrase 'born on the territory of The Polish State' could be so contentious. Depending on how you look at it, my great-grandparents were born on the territory, and it is now The Polish State.

 

Also, I think the consul is right in noting that section 1-A of the 1920 Act is possibly even more relevant, and it simply states:

An individual who is "...settled on the territory of The Polish State, as far as it is not entitled to another country’s citizenship. Regarded as a settled in The Polish State is the person who: ...is enrolled or is entitled to be enrolled to books of permanent population of former Kingdom of Poland..."

1-A, unlike part 2, does speak specifically in the past tense, and specifically refers to what was in existence prior to the State of Poland.

My great-parents most certainly are entitled to be enrolled to the books of permanent population of the former Kingdom of Poland; and the fact that they moved to the United States is 1910 as aliens is completely irrelevant. One does not become naturalized as a United States citizen upon crossing through the entry doors of Ellis Island. On an interesting note, I found a U.S. Census form from 1930 that my great-grandparents filled out. Under the 'Year of Immigration to the United States' column he put 1910. Under the 'Naturalization' column he, and dozens of other people, put 'NA'. I need to find out for sure if and when he was naturalized, but if he wasn't naturalized in 1918, then I don't see how the 'citizenship to another country' topic should be an issue.

 

Incurve, it sounds like you may have some valid points an attorney could make work for you. The key date, however is 1951. They can't have become citizens of the US before '51. That's when the new law was enacted.

 

You beat me on this and I didn't think it in that way. So if a phrasing can give room for dual interpretation they have the power and we don't.

You are right in that your great-grandparents are entitled to be enrolled in the books of permanent population of the former kingdom of Poland, so it shouldn't really matter whether they moved to the U.S.A. before the declaration of the Republic of Poland, of course, as long as they didn't become U.S. Citizens, because in that case they would have been entitled to another country's citizenship.

The question would be: if they were not present in the territory of the Polish State in 1920 or later, then what citizenship would they hold other than the citizenship of the Republic of Poland?. I wouldn't find it either logical nor possible to continue to hold the citizenship of the Kingdom of Poland after the existence of such a kingdom came to its end!

 

Hey everyone,

Below are the fees I paid;

entering one certificate into the Polish Registry - €390
applying for a confirmation of Polish citizenship - €690

other costs related to my case;

copy of passport notarised at Polish consulate - £20
copy of fathers Polish marriage certificate (2nd wife) notarised at Polish consulate - £20

copy of fathers Polish ID card notarised in Poland 16PLN

copy of my parents marriage certificate from the general records office - £23
copy of my parents marriage certificate with apostille from London (foreign & commonwealth office) - £27
translation of parents marriage certificate through Mr Staczeks office – 50 PLN

copy of fathers deed poll certificate (first name change) notarised by UK notary - £40
copy of fathers deed poll certificate with apostille from London - £27
copy of fathers deed poll certificate translated in Poland by family – 30PLN

Hope this gives you a rough idea.

 

Article 2. At the moment of declaration of the present act, the right to polish citizenship serves every person, without distinction of sex, age, religion and nationality, who:
1) is settled on the territory of The Polish State, as far as it is not entitled to another country’s citizenship. Regarded as a settled in The Polish State is the person who:
a) is enrolled or is entitled to be enrolled to books of permanent population of former Kingdom of Poland.

I think your great-grandparents would be Polish Citizens if they were in "The Polish State" in 1920, and neither in "the territory that would become the Polish State"(which basically is the same territory but before the declaration of The Republic of Poland), nor in the U.S.A; for the phrasing of art 2,they were not settled in the Republic of Poland "at the moment of the declaration of the act" because they were no longer settled in "the territory that would become Poland" but they were settled in the U.S.A. This is just my opinion, but I might be wrong.

 

This is how I see it:

Article 2. At the moment of declaration of the present act, the right to polish citizenship serves every person, without distinction of sex, age, religion and nationality, who:

1) is settled on the territory of The Polish State, as far as it is not entitled to another country’s citizenship. Regarded as a settled in The Polish State is the person who:

a) is enrolled or is entitled to be enrolled to books of permanent population of former Kingdom of Poland;

My great-grandparents are considered as 'settled on the territory of The Polish State' because a person that can be regarded as 'settled in The Polish State' is the person who is enrolled or is entitled to be enrolled to books of permanent population of the Former Kingdom of Poland.

They were entitled to be or enrolled to books of the permanent population of the former Kingdom of Poland, which means they can be regarded as individuals that are 'settled on the territory of the Polish State', which means they have the right to Polish citizenship.

 

Polish law does leave a lot to interpretation (I have read the Polish version of a few of them, and the simple fact that they have run-on sentences with little to no punctuation makes some things easy to flip flop the intended meaning) With a good lawyer, and a couple of tens of thousands of Euros, I am sure one could set a precedence. I doubt anyone has deemed it worthy of the investment to-date though.

 

When they say "at the moment of the declaration of the present act" do you think they imply that the prospective citizen has to be settled in the Polish State, at that moment? is still considered to be settled in Poland "at that moment" even when he is residing in the U.S. from 1910? To be honest I can't figure it out. The phrasing seems ambiguous and contradictory.

 

Yes, at the moment of the declaration of the act, one must be settled on the territory of the Polish State to receive the right to Polish citizenship. A person that is settled on the Polish State can be a person who is enrolled or is entitled to be enrolled to books of permanent population of the former Kingdom of Poland.

My great-grandparents were in the U.S. when this law was enacted. They were not naturalized as U.S. Citizens; hence, they were not citizens of the United States. Even if they were in the U.S., they were entitled to or enrolled in books of permanent population of the former Kingdom of Poland, which means they could be considered as individuals that were 'settled on the territory of the Polish State', even if they were physically in another place. Because they could be considered as settled on the territory of the Polish State, they would have the right to Polish Citizenship.

 

You are absolutely right. Imagine when you translate it into English...it could be even more contentious. I wonder why nobody ever set a precedent on this matter.

 

Normally I wouldn't bother mentioning this, but I decided it may be of some help to someone in the future.

I just called as they told me to last Friday. I began calling here a half hour ago. I called every 10 minutes, on all 4 lines (I know they are there since I called the same number last week at the same time!). No answer at all. Finally, I got an answer. Same girl I spoke to last week. She put me on hold and came back and said that the girl is working on the case today (they close in 30 mins, though?) but to call back Monday. She gave me the lady who is working on my case's direct phone number and name, which is different than the one from last week. She also told me she speaks better English than she does (and she speaks conversational English quite well). Let you all know Monday, assuming they answer or don't further delay.

 

What conditions are required to be entitled to be enrolled in the books of permanent population of the former Kingdom of Poland?. If that condition was that you are only temporary resident in another country, then it should be fine. You really need to find out what were those conditions.

Why is the consul saying that you can not be permanent resident in two places at the same time? If you can only find something that says that your great-grandfather was residing temporarily in the U.S. you can use that as a defense.

 

You answered your own question....You can be a permanent resident in only 1 place and a temporary resident in mulitple other places at any specific point in time. (unless you can clone yourself )

Therfore, when you change your place of permanent residence, then the former permanent place becomes a potential temporary residence.

 

The hardest part is going to be find out how you can prove he didn't become a permanent resident, and furthermore, what does the Polish government consider an act of becoming a permanent resident.

The Polish government may say that the act of leaving Poland at that time was tantamount to permanent emigration and permanent residence in the end destination. I don't even know how you can find this information out...

 

I have a question of my own:

I have another family member's Polish passport. It's weird because under nationality it is crossed out. A passport itself is proof of citizenship, yet at the same time it says he's not Polish? My grandfather's passport says "Obwy Polski" in the same place. What am I missing?