Talk:Right of return

Merge with Law of Return request

Yodakii? You put the tag on here, but I don't see that you've voiced any reason for doing so. Before anyone can discuss it, they have to know what the issue is... Also, you negected to add the {{merge}} to the Law of Return article. Any particular reason?  :-p Tomer ^TALK 01:54, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

There is a discussion in the "Comparing the Jewish and Palestinian sections". I thought that was enough to add the tag. As for the Law of Return article, there is no discussion there about merging, only here. Should I bring it up in that article's discussion as well? Yodakii 03:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I took care of it. If you want to know how, just check out the diffs at Law of Return. Tomer ^TALK 04:15, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

The Law of Return is a pretty big topic by itself. While there should certainly be a summary here, the topic I think is well wide enough to merit its own article.--Pharos 07:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• In fact, the opposite merge is due: the wikipedia policy is to split sub-articles from big ones. mikka (t) 23:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wrong heading

As described in the definintion here:

"The term Right of return reflects a belief that members of an ethnic or national group have a right to immigration and naturalization into the nation they consider their homeland. This belief is sometimes reflected in special consideration in a nation's immigration laws which facilitate or encourage the reunion of a diaspora or dispersed ethnic population.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 13 states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." (emphasis added). There is disagreement as to what this actually means in practice as well as whether country refers to a state or a specific area of land. In addition, the change from State to country from the first sentence to the second clouds the issue."

The Law of Return has nothing to do with these conditions and they are misleading. It makes sense to seperate these entities.

I don't believe that Law of Return and this article are the same. One is a law, one is a concept. Each has its own separate ontological life. --Defenestrate 18:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Overhaul

Having browsed this page and the Law of Return one, I thought I would try an overhaul. I am still new at this, so apologies if I am going too fast! I kind of got going and was going to try and do it all on the Talk page, then realized both that it would be faster to just make the changes, and that things here can be easily reverted if my edits are improper.

Particularly noting that the Law of Return article is about the Israeli law, I have tried to make this one more neutral by incorporating all of the national contexts of which I was aware. The countries are now listed in alphabetical order, and the debate about extending Israeli citizenship to ethnic Jews and ethnic Palestinians, respectively, are listed under "Israel". I did not create a separate section called "Palestine" re who if anyone should be entitled to citizenship on an ethnic basis in the nascent Palestine, but I assume someone will do that if it is an issue as well. (I would suspect that ethnic Palestinians have a right of return in that state, without prejudice to any rights they might have in other states. But that's just a guess.) --AnotherBDA 07:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Israel

"Impact on Israel" section

This entire section seems pernicious, and introduces an external issue (the logistical effects of implimentation on another country) to, as it seems clear to me, delegitimize the fundamental treatment of the supposed "right." The concern here is to describe the "right" itself, and to describe its evolution within both historical and theoretical contexts.

The legitimacy of one's right to something is not conditional upon who would suffer as a result of implimenting it. This doesn't have to be too philosophical. "Does this right exist, or not?" Any definition of a "right" is inherently a moral statement, and objections to the existance of the right must as well be moral. To argue that Palestinians were not all forcibly removed, or to argue that the notion of "Palestinian" is not an organic ethnic term, or to reject that there ever has been a "Palestine" to which to return are all valid arguments against the notion of a Palestinian right of return, because all those statements are moral. To reject the fundamental notion of the right by claiming that implimenting it would disrupt the way Israelis currently like to consider their country is not a valid argument against right itself. Let's say that there happen to only be 100,000 Palestinian descendants declaring a Right of Return. This number would not significantly alter the demographics of Israel if they were to return... would the right then be more valid? What does the number of people have anything to do with the substance of the right? Do people retain rights only until a critical number of people wish to exercise them, and then they are revoked? This notion would have confused Locke and Voltaire very much, not to mention Maimonides or Strauss.

Also, to give a baldly biased POV, and then to simply justify its inclusion by saying "some people think this" is, sorry to say, also a violation of NPOV. So, statements like "Jewish Israelis... see the demand for a Palestinian Right of Return as merely another, more subtle way of arguing for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state" are simply inappropriate. These statements exist to undercut the substance of the right, not to highlight the opinion of a certain group. Certainly, many different interested groups would have plenty to say about the Right of Return for Germans, Armenians, Serbians, Albanians, American Indians (neglected in this article), etc. But those objections are rightly left out of this article. To tell me that "[Palestinian repatriation] would automatically defeat the purpose of Israel's creation, doing away with a Jewish state, as a refuge for the Jews of the world" is a neutral statement is to insult anyone's intelligence. Why must only Palestinians have an asterisk by their name due to the controversy over their situation?

Finally, there exists no international notion, that I am aware of, to suggest that a state has any "right" declare itself "for" a certain ethnic group over any other (ie. to declare oneself a Jewish State). Plenty of political bodies are obstensibly "for" certain peoples, but these states have no "right" to do this, and no right to justify the denial of valid rights (such as that of Return, if it is indeed a valid right) on the basis of this ethnic ownership principle. Therefore, the Right to exist as a Jewish state is not relevant to a discussion about the Right of Return.

If the article wanted to consider the actual demographic effects of repatriation (which I fully welcome), those should be treated amorally, as in the manner of an independent policy investigation. Shortly, I will remove or restructure this section, unless the writer wishes to revise it themself.

"Re:Impact on Israel" section

I agree totally: this part of Right of Return should be deleted as it is very biased.The person who wrote this is putting up his personal opinion from an Israeli point of view to justify a "no-return" policy.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.195.119.45 (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Majority of Land for Jewish Use Only-- very controversial

This cannot be stated as "fact" it is beyond controversial-- it has been shown to be mostly fabrication.

ABSOLUTELY WRONG HEADING

There is absolutely no evidence that this definition of Right of Return has any basis whatsoever. The right of return refers to the right of displaced people (refugees) to return to their home communities. This is guaranteed under the UN declaration of human right. Most of this article should be moved to Repatriation laws.

removed questionable material

I removed this material:

This would amount to approximately 373,000 individuals (based on the population estimates used in the study) and does not include Palestinians living in other areas, such as North America, Europe, or Syria (which might bring the total to over 800,000). The majority said that rather than returning to live in Israel, they would prefer to live in a Palestinian state, either in an existing Palestinian area or in an area that becomes Palestinian as the result of a territorial exchange.

These results are in stark contrast with Israeli public opinion. However, it should be noted that the Israeli concern of a demographic shift is not based on the fear of a short term shift alone. Although disputed, it is possible that in a few decades from now the Palestinians living inside Israel will constitute a majority because of their significantly larger birth rate, and even a comparatively small influx of Palestinians would hasten that event .

There would also be an immensely complex and expensive legal disputes over the ownership of property. Prior to 1948 Jews owned almost 7% of the land and the Palestinians around 21%. Palestinians who stayed in Israel owned 3% of the land, and kept ownership of it, while the remaining 18% owned by exiled Palestinians was expropriated. Whilst Israeli-Arabs (20% of the population) own 3% of the land, and Jews own 3.5% of the land individually, most of the land (93.5%) is owned by the State and international Jewish organizations.

The statistics in the first paragraph are not coherent and the remainder of the paragraph adds nothing substantive (if only 10% wanted to go to israel, then obviously 90% don't). The other two paragraphs are highly speculative and don't belong, and bordering on original research; let's stick to facts. The demographic issues in the second paragraph are already mentioned in the text up above that still remains. I also don't think that the source cited in the paragraph is especially credible. As for the third paragraph, I don't think it's especially relevant, and I don't think the statistics are at all relevant. No doubt there would be major land disputes -- but obviously there would be many other major issues as well (as there would be in any major population absorption), and certainly these would be addressed in any putative agreement. Benwing 06:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Immigration laws of the Muslim world

what are laws for immigration to Jordan? are Jewish refugees from Jordan allowed to live in Jordan? yosef aetos

Jews are excluded form citizenship in Jordan, and several other Arab states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.24 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

how is Jordan related to Palestinians? If you want to edit this article fairly, you must differentiate between Jewish and Israeli - Muslim and Arabs, and most importantly between Palestinians and other Arab nationalities, as there is a big difference. To clarify the point here is a hypothetical example: There is a difference, a logical one at least, between a European and a Greek, for example. Europeans from Ukraine, lets say, are not entitled in Greek lands, nationally - except under specified laws. This is a completely hypothetical example, just to clarify the point for the above users. Lets produce a respectable article - a descent source of information - not a political description or opinion of the situation. --Zakouma (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddball Countries

Is it possible for anybody to do a little research into those oddball countries which have next to no information concerning them (I saw Japan, Poland, and Lithuania)? Sire22 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

POV and unsourced.

this shouldn't be in here, or if so, put sources in. But as it stands, the author is inserting their own POV for fact.

"Some critics (What critics?) 'argue that Jews comprise a religion (Not based by genetics or fact, political critics can't debate genetics: http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp , http://www.cohen-levi.org/jewish_genes_and_genealogy/jewish_genes_-_dna_evidence.htm, http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=9206 , *not to mention that Secular (esp) gentile critics have no place arguing that another group of people are based as a religion as their only defining feature because that is their political opinion.*

) whose members hail from many nations and do not constitute a people or a nation, and that they can therefore have no right of self-determination to exercise. Within this group, some argue that Jews are citizens of their own states and belong to the nations they come from, and are therefore foreign to Palestine. ( What palestine? There is no palestine. Wishful thiking is POV. Since all Jews came from Israel - this is not only established fact and world wide acknowledged, there is historical and archeological basis to this. (aside from those in the Middle East teaching that Jews were never in Israel and Islam is the first religion). What is foreign to Israel, is every other group of people. They all took over the land to destroy the Jews and as conquest. After the Jews got their land back, Legally through Britain giving it back, the Arabs once again tried to invade and conquer - and the small portion of Israel that was bequeathed back to the Jews, was slightly widened through the Israelis fighting back against a war they did not start. They captured land fair and square. If captured land must always be given back to that from which it was taken from. The Jews would have Israel anyway. The boundaries of most Middle East countries were arbitrarily fixed by the Western powers after Turkey was defeated in World War I and the French and British mandates were set up. The areas allotted to Israel under the UN partition plan had all been under the control of the Ottomans, who had ruled Palestine from 1517 until 1917. When Turkey was defeated in World War I, the French took over the area now known as Lebanon and Syria. The British assumed control of Palestine and Iraq. In 1926, the borders were redrawn and Lebanon was separated from Syria. Britain installed the Emir Faisal, who had been deposed by the French in Syria, as ruler of the new kingdom of Iraq. In 1922, the British created the emirate of Transjordan, which incorporated all of Palestine east of the Jordan River. This was done so that the Emir Abdullah, whose family had been defeated in tribal warfare in the Arabian peninsula, would have a Kingdom to rule. None of the countries that border Israel became independent until this century. Many other Arab nations became independent after Israel. Based on this, they say that this nullifies Jewish self-determination since the concept of self-determination only applies to land that a person is a native in ('Then why does this not apply to Jordanians,Egyptians, etc. calling themselves palestinians? Why is ayone who thinks they are "palestinian" are allowed to call themselves such regardless of their actual nationality?' Other critics argue that nation-states are outmoded and unjust in any case, and that the Westphalian notion of a right to self-determination as embodied in the U.N. Charter should therefore give way to post-national states which allow their citizens to mobilize marketplace or voluntary mechanisms for cultural preservation, no state institutions."

NO source, no nothing it should not be here. If you want to put critics in, put them in, and cite their sources.

No right of return

Would it be worth mentioning that the right of return is a fairly new concept? Millions of Quakers, Huguenots, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, etc. fled various European countries due to religious persecution. Their descendants generally have no special right of return to those countries.

No doubt there are similar situations all over the world.41.243.113.222 15:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that we now have the UN and it's obligations which extend to all Member states, We also have Conventions and resolutions, which were NOT in place prior to the UN. nofavour —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benni seidel (talk • contribs) 13:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Palestine and Israel sections unbalanced

Palestine is shown as a subsection under Israel. That is inherently POV and implies that Israel is inclusive of the whole area, a patently false claim, since Palestine also exists within the same geographical area. The two sections should both be at the same level, that is, Palestine deserves it's own H1 heading, just as Israel, or any other country does. Tagging this section for disputed neutrality is correct, and I endorse. — Becksguy (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No one has responded in four days, so I changed Palestine to H1 level, same as all the other entries, to remove inherent POV imbalance based on hierarchy. No content changed. Also fixed POV tag to POV-section tag, since it's not article level. — Becksguy (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Israel is a country. "Palestine" is a vague geographic area, and possible future country. Since Palestinians demand a "right of return" to the existing country of Israel, the previous hierarchy was logical and factual, not "POV". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Palestinians have the right of return to a larger area than that occupied by Israel, out of the total geographical area of Palestine, especially historically. Even currently, and most importantly, the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and East Jerusalem are not part of Israel. It's a logical fallacy, as well as a POV violation, and a factual error to refer to all areas of Palestine as Israel, when there are other areas of Palestine, at various times, that are not part of the State of Israel, including parts of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, currently, as well as under the Mandate, the Ottomans, and other empires going back to before the Roman Empire two millennia ago. It just doesn't compute. Also, we are not talking about states here, we are talking about an ethnic and cultural homeland for a displaced people. That's the whole point to the right of return. And even if we were talking about states, Palestine is a state, so declared in 1988, and so recognized by about half the world's governments today. And apparently most Palestinians don't want to be Israeli citizens. — Becksguy (talk) 01:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Original research - note to IP editor from 86.108.nnn.nnn range

IP editor, the paragraphs you are repeatedly inserting into this article (as well as to Palestinian right of return) are unsourced. They appear to be your own personal viewpoints, created through original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please review our policy against origianl research, especially the part about using material published by reliable sources in a way that constitutes original research. Also, consider getting a user account, rather than utilizing multiple IP addresses, whcih could lead to having some of those blocked under our sockpuppet policy. Canadian Monkey (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine

I think the title "Israel" should be changed to Israel/Palestine. Especially since the Palestinians are discussed in this section. --Michael1408 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Impact on Israel

Further to discussion above, I am removing this section.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel and the occupied territories

Is there any objection to changing the Israeli section to say that it gives the right to live in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories?93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Only objection is that legally it is Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory - in reference to the wholesome of the geographic territories occupied after the six-day war. Most, if not all, international organizations (under international mandates and laws - i.e UN institutions). An example is the UNCHR http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/MENARegion/Pages/PSIndex.aspx . --Zakouma (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

UK

The section on 'Britain' (and I am changing that to 'United Kingdom', by the way) needs work. The general thrust is that an Act of Parliament gave people of British descent immigration rights. That is not quit the case. A series of Acts (passed 1962, 1968, 1971, and 1983)RESTRICTED the once very generous immigration laws of the UK. One way in which Citizenship can be achieved is by having a by descent from a UK citizen. The article then claims that this was intended to give citizenship to ethnic English, Scots, Welsh or Irish abroad. In fact the sum total of all this legislation didn't give any immigration rights to people who would not have already had them, they excluded a number of other groups. They are specifically NOT based on ethnicity, as the artilce implies. A British-born UK-citizen ancestor of any ethnic origin (Jewish, Italian, Polish, Indian, Irish etc) is sufficient. In fact, Adoption is sometimes sufficient, so there does not have to be any ethnic connection. We need a citation for the idea that the intention of this succession of legislation was intended to benefit any particular ethnic group, or that has to be removed. A short snippet from a speech giving the personal motivations of one MP in voting for one particular piece of legislation (and it's unclear which of the four relevant Acts of Parliament this refers to) has been given as supporting evidence. This MP dioes not seem to have had a hand in drawing any of the legislation. And as individual MPs support measures for a varietry of personal reasons that are often unconnected with the Bill's original intention, this does not demonstrate to motivation of the Government of the day. Indisciplined (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubious blurb on Auld alliance

The part about dual citizenship French/Scottish sounds to me highly dubious. Following from the Act of Union 1707, there has been a single British citizenship, and the UK had been at war with France several times. The cited source is a historic accomodation site — it has absolutely no academic value. I've seen the same information being cited on many sites, but all of them are amateur and none cites the actual 1903 law (if discussing a French law, one should at least give a date and perhaps a Journal Officiel reference). David.Monniaux (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

lead and background

The lead and background sections are POV. See page 200 and onward here for an example of an opposing opinion. The main issue is how one's "own country" is defined. There's certainly no agreement that prior personal citizenship is not a requirement.
I'm open to suggestions on how to fix this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

your addition did not make this better. the opposing opinions are covered in the rest of the article. don't continue to revert - try to gain consensus here on talk. untwirl(talk) 17:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can see I brought this up over a month ago and recieved no reply until now.

Anyway, the lead should at least reflect the fact that the right of return as recognized by international law hinges on the definition of "one's own country", which many if not most scholars interpret to mean citizens or nationals of the relevant country.

Did you read the source I provided above? Have a look also at notes 46, 77, and 78 at Palestinian right of return. These talk about a right of return in general, not only as applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict and include the UN commissioned Study of Discrimination in Respect of the Right of Everyone to Leave any Country, Including His Own, and to Return to His Country. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

the lead covers the fact that there are many interpretations of what "one's own country" means. Please add the specifics from your source to the background section - it is sorely lacking in references. thanks. untwirl(talk) 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The lead as it is now reads as if a person can decide unilaterally that they have a right of return to any country they chose. All they need to do is consider it their "homeland". I think we both understand that's not the case. There is wide agreement that people have a right to "return" or "enter" a country they are citizens or nationals of. The interpretation that prior citizenship/nationality is not required is a minority view and the way the lead is worded now gives it undue weight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

On closer reading of the lead, it states that this is a right that applies to an "ethnic or national group". This is also incorrect. It is an individual right. It is stated as such both in the Universal Decleration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The whole lead needs reworking. Suggestions? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(out) To start us off, here are quotes from the relevant instruments of international law

• Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Article 13(2), Universal Declaration of Human Rights
• No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country. Article 12, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

As you can see, there's no mention of "ethnic or national group". This is an individual right. Part of the problem we have here is that this article mixes "right of return" as part of international law and "right of return" as applied in the immigration laws of certain states. The bulk of the article is about the latter kind. I think we should consider splitting it.

Anyway, I think the lead should read The term right of return refers to the principle in international law that an individual has a right to immigration and naturalization in certain countries, stated as a right to "return" or "enter" into "his country". This belief is sometimes reflected in special consideration in a country's immigration laws (called "repatriation") which facilitate or encourage the reunion of a diaspora or dispersed ethnic population." No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

here's the current one, for comparison's sake:

"The term right of return refers to the principle in international law that members of an ethnic or national group have a right to immigration and naturalization into the country that they, the destination country, or both consider to be that group's homeland, often independent of prior personal citizenship in that country. This belief is sometimes reflected in special consideration in a country's immigration laws (called "repatriation") which facilitate or encourage the reunion of a diaspora or dispersed ethnic population."

i think the overuse of quotation marks in your version isn't encyclopedic, while the current version explains what each of those versions mean. though, the wording could probably be a little better. i'll play around with it a bit. untwirl(talk) 21:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The current lead is factually incorrect. That isn't very encyclopedic either. The quoted parts in the version I suggested are those words which are significant in the legal interpretation of the law, which is why I put "stated as" there. We could change that bit to ...stated as the "right to return to his country" or "right to enter his own country".

I'm open to suggestions, of course. Keep in mind that "ehtnic or national group" and "homeland" don't appear in the relevant instruments and should not be in the lead. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with No More Mr Nice Guy. As a principle in international law, this is an individual right, and nowhere do the source documented (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refer to ethnic or national groups. Millmoss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

I'm not really happy with the "his country of origin" bit. That's not the way the texts word it and is too open to interpretation. I still think we'll need "his country" in quotes, with something indicating this is the actual wording. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Germany

I'm curious: do the Germans let German Swiss and Austrians (citizens of German-speaking countries) naturalize under Aussiedler? —Quintucket (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Right to return" for Indonesian Dutch citizens?

So right after Indonesia ceased to officially be a Dutch colony and Indonesia was in power of the islands, the Dutch government declared something very similar to a right of return, only most citizens didn't truly "return", they just stayed in what is lawfully the same country. People living in Indonesia could freely migrate to the European Netherlands, as that's where they lived before according to the law. The same happened approximately a decade later with Suriname. KarstenO (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Right of return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mpsv.cz/scripts/clanek.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051127033448/http://www.irac.org/article_e.asp?artid=199 to http://www.irac.org/article_e.asp?artid=199
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110221203359/http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf to http://www.aijac.org.au/resources/reports/international_law.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Right of Return in CIL

By contrast, the right of return has not passed into customary international law, although it remains an important aspirational human right. Instead, international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship.

These two sentences appear to be wrong. Citing Lawand:

2.3.1 The right to return as part of customary international law The fact that the right to return is expressly recognized in most international human rights instruments and draft declarations, that the constitutions, laws and jurisprudence of many States formally recognize it, that it is expressly protected in international humanitarian law instruments, and that it is consistently referred to in resolutions of UN organs dealing with the rights of refugees generally, supports the argument that the right exists in customary international law, although its precise content is difficult to define. At the very least, State practice indicates that a resident national will not be refused the right of re-entry.

Lawand clearly argues that the Right of Return is part of CIL. Then the sentence "international law gives each country the right to decide for itself to whom it will give citizenship" is true but not really relevant. States does not have the right to refuse reentry of their citizens. Also I'm not sure why the cited source Liechtenstein v. Guatemala (the Nottebohm case) is relevant here. ImTheIP (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Domestic immigration laws are not about Right of Return

So this page is about the legal principle of a RoR. That right is awarded by a few conventions to people to allow them to return to their country of origin. However, the examples in the "By country" list are almost all of domestic laws to facilitate immigration of certain ethnic groups. Those laws are not manifestations of the principle of the RoR. Instead, they grant an option of returning to those ethnic groups in addition to the RoR extended to citizens of those countries. The difference is substantial.

I don't know on which page this list belongs, either Immigration law or Nationality law.. I don't think it belongs on this page. ImTheIP (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

well, I did it. Now most of the content is at Nationality law. Now what's left are the examples in which I know people have invoked the RoR principle; Greek-Cypriots, Sudeten Germans, Palestinians and Chagossians. ImTheIP (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

R.Feller, please discuss it then. Because I stand by edits. ImTheIP (talk) 10:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Some of the countries you removed provide a definite right of return - not just preference in immigration - but a right - I returned them. Conversely - groups arguing for a supposed right, but that do not have that right, should perhaps be removed.Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

All states provide a right of return. Which is not strange because it is recognized as a human right. For example, an Italian citizen will not be barred from reentry after travelling abroad. Instead, what is interesting are groups claiming that their right of return has been denied to them. Note that the article is (and was before I edited it) about the right of return principle in international law. Laws that facilitate immigration for ethnic groups that states feel "belong to the nation" are not derived from this principle. Instead they are examples of Nationality laws which is why I moved them to that article. ImTheIP (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree in part to your edit - e.g. countries that allow immigration of people with grandparents / parents / former citizens / or return of citizens - are not conferring a right of return. However German immigration law allowing ethnic Germans (some residing abroad for hundreds of years - many generations) to return to Germany, the Hungarian immigration law (same provision - any ethnic Hungarian who can speak basic Hungarian), or the Israeli law of return - which allows any displaced Jew to return to Israel following a 2,000 year exile - all confer a right of return to an ethnic group. These are actual applications of a right to return. Various non-state groups making claims - are trying to gain some right, but don't have it as of yet (and may or may not have it in the future).Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Then you first need to find authoritative sources which links the Israeli Law of Return and article 116 of the German Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany with the international law principle of the right of return. As a compromise (still wrong, though) I can agree on a link from this article to the Nationality law#Provisions_to_simplify_immigration_of_favored_ethnic_groups section in the other article. ImTheIP (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The basis for Israel's law of return (and the Zionist movement predating the state) is the supposed right of Jews to return to their homeland. There is ample sourcing for this (and likewise for other examples - e.g. the Greek diaspora (some of which, e.g. Pontic Greeks is long removed from Greece) and Greece). You made a rather huge change to this article (removing multiple countries and 2/3 of the text) - I do not think we will agree here if you insist on removing every country with a concrete right of return (concrete in the sense that you may demand this as a right in a court of law in the country) - I suggest you open a RfC if this is what you are shooting for.Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I know what the Zionist movement is. But this article is about a principle in public international law and international human rights law. The right of Jews to emigrate to Palestine and then Israel is a thought found in Zionist theory, but it is not based on international law. I hope you understand my point. It is not that I think the idea is "wrong," just that it is off topic for this particular article. I have therefore moved (not re-moved) the list that was on this page and placed it on nationality law. Reason being that the Law of Return and other similar laws are examples of (domestic) nationality law. But I'm open to compromise; we could for example create a new article: List of Countries with Special Citizenship Rules, List of Countries Encouraging Immigration of Diaspora Populations or something... I just don't want the list on this page because it confuses the reader. ImTheIP (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This should be here as this is an application of said right. If a future state of Palestine enacts a law of return based on some criteria for Palestinians should we remove them from this list? I think not.Icewhiz (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

If the Palestinians were allowed to return to their country of origin, IL would indicate that their right of return were no longer violated. They would perhaps remain in the list as an example of a past and now resolved dispute. ImTheIP (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The Jewish claim to a right of return, which predates the Palestinian claim (in that the Zionist movement predates 1948) is based on the exact same grounds - the Jews as refugees from the Roman destruction some 1900 years ago, and lacking a modern state of their own (and thus remaining 2nd (or below) class citizens in modern nation states of other nations). Therefore, this should remain. As should other similar examples - such as the Pontic Greeks afforded a right of return to modern Greece. Whether these claims have merit is a separate issue from the exercise of said right.Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the Zionist movement's ambition of a Return to Zion is much older than the formation of the right of return in international law proves that this ambition is not based upon international law. I hope you understand what I'm saying here. I'm not saying that it is not right of Israel to allow Jews to immigrate. I am saying that the laws that allows Jews to do so, is not based on international law. ImTheIP (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Btw, the Palestinian argument for a return is more multi-faceted than you give it credit for. It is partly based on the right of return, but it is also based on the laws of State succession, property rights and on morality. But, since this article is about RoR as a human right in IL, the only base that is relevant to this article is the one based on just RoR as a human right in IL. ImTheIP (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The various treaties codifying this right - were based on pre-existing examples of the application of this right. I don't think we will agree here (nor do previous editors on this page seem in agreement with your interpretation here of scope). I suggest you open a RfC if you think this is something you want to pursue. I do agree with you on the removal of some of the national immigration laws which only had a preference, not an absolute right.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC) R. Feller and myself don't agree with you - but participation in this discussion is sparse (just you and me it would seem) - and you are calling for removal of information that has been on this page for a very long time. Possibly page watchers of this page have vanished, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? So pulling in wider participation than the 2 of us is in order if you want to push this through.Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

(unindenting the discussing) No, I don't think we will get further. I have offered compromises, but you don't seem to want to compromise. Just to be clear, is your opinion that all the examples now at Nationality law belongs on this page? Or are there some immigration laws for certain ethnic groups that does not fit under the Right of Return heading? Otherwise, how do you argue that there is a material difference to the laws that govern immigration for ethnic Belarusians to Belarus from the similar laws applying to Lithuanians and Lithuania? Because I can't understand why you have chosen to revert the Lithuania section but not the Belarus section. ImTheIP (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I really should be more than 2 editors - shame no one else is watching. I didn't return Belarus (based on the information that was in the article) as it states "permanent residence term requirements may be waived for ethnic Belarusians and descendants of ethnic Belarusians born abroad" - thus this is not a definite right (it may be waived, may not), and it only applies to a particular aspect (waiving residence terms). Contrast this with Lithuania (again I didn't check this all the way through) - "Every Lithuanian person may settle in Lithuania." - in the constitution - thus is a constitutional right for every Lithuanian person to be able to live (settle) in Lithuania - this is a definite right - not a "preferred treatment" in some aspect (which may or may not be applied) - but a definite right. If you look at the ones I brought back - they were all in the same vein - definite rights. I left out the ones where immigration / permenant residence / citizenship was easier for ethnic groups (or descendants of citizens) - but were not definite rights.Icewhiz (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. So according to you, some of these national laws grants "rights" to people, but some of them only grants what? Options? My tax code allows me to do several tax deductions if I choose to travel to work using an electric car. Have I been conferred a "right" by my state or an "option?" Would my "right" have been violated if my tax code didn't allow me to make those deductions? You seem to not understand what a human right is. ImTheIP (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The Belarussian law, for instance, grants the authorities the option, at their discretion, to waive some requirements for ethnic Belarussians. It does not by itself grant said Belarussians any right - the authorities at their discretion (note some legal systems place limits on the use of discretion, though probably not here) may choose not to waive the residency requirement. Contrast this with a country where there is a constitutional right for some group to immigrate or settle. Members of said group can demand the right in court, if denied by authorities.Icewhiz (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: have you read the prior discussion on this talk page? Several editors have made roughly the same arguments as I'm making: "Part of the problem we have here is that this article mixes 'right of return' as part of international law and 'right of return' as applied in the immigration laws of certain states. The bulk of the article is about the latter kind. I think we should consider splitting it." ImTheIP (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you RFC this - as it really is just the two of us. The previous article consensus was to include all these (and I agree with you that it was over bloated - I agreed on some of your redactions). Let's get other views if you want to nuke this all out.Icewhiz (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Domestic immigration laws

Should this article have a section called "Countries with laws conferring a right of return"? ImTheIP (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC # 2, Section: Palestine

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is strong consensus for the proposed edit to be Accepted .Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 15:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Is there a general consensus here to include in the current article the following edit, in the section entitled "Palestine", since it ostensibly speaks about the subject of the "Right of Return," and gives the current Israeli-government perspective on this issue?

Proposed edit:

"Israel's Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was reported as saying in June of 2017 that his government will not allow any Palestinians to settle in the lands claimed by them and currently part of Israeli territory.[1]"

• Notes:

[1] Tom O'Conner, Israel Will Not Accept A Single Palestinian To Old Borders, Says Defense Minister, 23 June 2017

^[1]Davidbena (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, BUT - I'd include a short Israeli response, but not necessarily Lieberman or even anyone in particular - this has been a long standing Israeli position (beyond perhaps conceding a small token of a few thousand).Icewhiz (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Agree. My view is that it should, indeed, be added, whether or not we agree with this policy. However, I'm not sure what you mean about adding "a short Israeli response." Do you mean a second Israeli opinion?Davidbena (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• No: @Davidbena, didn't we discuss this issue? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ImTheIP#Question I don't understand why you left the discussion and made an rfc instead. I think your Avigdor Liberman quote certainly belongs in the Palestinian right of return article, but not here. We have "Main article:"-links that users can click on to read about topics in depth. We don't have any "counter-arguments" for the sections about displaced Georgians, Greek-Cypriots or Chagossians so I don't understand why we should have it for Palestinians. Such counter-arguments are best presented in their respective articles. The focus of this article is about the legal principle, not on individual groups specific claims. ImTheIP (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we discussed it, but obviously the subject matter needs more input. Advice never hurts.Davidbena (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I see. We could have discussed it further on this talk page if you so had pleased. Rfc:s are usually created (I think) as a last step when nothing else has worked. ImTheIP (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

No an rfc is not a last step. Its an early step especially when so few editors are involved in discussion of the subject.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes: The material is immediately relevant and not overly wordy. We touch on the Abkhazian response to the claims of the Georgian refugees, the British response to the claims of the Chagossians, and... whatever is going on in Cyprus, all to provide a more complete picture of the subject. The Palestinians are the outlier here. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
• yes This is material related to the content in the article and gives the Israeli position on the right of return of Palestinians. It gives no undue weight to the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

References

1. [1]

   O'Connor, Tom (23 June 2017). "Israel Will Not Accept A Single Palestinian To Old Borders, Says Defense Minister". Newsweek. Retrieved 24 June 2017. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not sure it was proper to close this RFC. 4/5 (counting one anon user) is not a very strong consensus. ImTheIP (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You can ask the user to address there close. It's clear there's a consensus for inclusion though.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Right of return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304075359/https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf to https://www.bundestag.de/blob/284870/ce0d03414872b427e57fccb703634dcd/basic_law-data.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705222308/http://athens.usembassy.gov/uploads/7z/Z4/7zZ4A6EyE4dMjph5dNxFew/citizenship_code.pdf to http://athens.usembassy.gov/uploads/7z/Z4/7zZ4A6EyE4dMjph5dNxFew/citizenship_code.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Resettled refugees

Removed this sentence:

Refugees who are resettled into third countries lose refugee status and acquire a new nationality. They therefore lose the right to return to their country of origin.

The CN tag was:

It's unclear what this is referring to. It doesn't seem to come from the UNHRC interpretation above, nor the Nottebohm case above, neither of which make mention of resettlement, or such resettlement causing loss of the right of return.

I agree with the CN tag. The sentene is very unclear. A refugee can't "forfeit" their right of return. It is not clear that a refugee loses their right of return even after being naturalized in their country of refuge.ImTheIP (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Original research

As can be seen both from the early versions of this article and the majority of the debate on this page, the raison d'etre of this article is as an apologia for Israel. Actually very few of the examples are similar. But that's not my reason for commenting. Per WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY, it is not acceptable for editors to interpret legal documents such as constitutions. An example are Estonia, whose constitution says "Every Estonian has the right to settle in Estonia." There is no definition of Estonian ethnicity, but only of Estonian citizenship. Without expert interpretation based not only on this one sentence, but also on the citizenship and immigration laws plus relevant court rulings, it is not possible to say exactly what it means in practice. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to do such analysis. Lithuania is the same, and it looks like others are too. All of this has to go if it isn't cited to reliable secondary sources. Sources that mention these countries in passing are not acceptable either. Zero^talk 09:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Last edit

@מתיאל: no idea what you mean with undue and one-sided? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)