What is the requirement for Citizensip? It varies from countries to countries. Some give it on the basis of birth in the country,  some require birth to parents who are citizens , some give children citizenship if one parent is a citizen, some give to those who are married to a citizen, some require residency for a number of years,and others severely  restrict it and still others only grant it on the basis of "jus sanguinis".....race and blood.
     In Germany, citizenship is based on "blood"....jus sanguinis, it does not matter where you are born, if one parent is German. For many years, those who lived and work eg. Turks, were not allowed to become citizens, but that has been changed. Since Jan.1, 2000, if one parent is a permanent resident or if you have been residing there for over 18 years, and refugees and stateless persons of at least 6 years are eligible to apply. Speaking German is a requirement. One of the lugers at the Winter Olympics has a parent from Ghana.
     In Japan, it is still very severely limited. A few applicants are accepted each year...a few hundred out of the 10,000 or so that apply each year. This means that the tens of thousands of Koreans and Chinese who have lived there for generations and speak the language, are still not eligible. You have to have lived there for more than 5 years and be over 20, be sane and have no criminal record, make an application and then be subjected to a very rigorous investigation.

     In Canada on the other hand (USA, Britain etc have some of the same), you are eligible after being an legal immigrant for 3 years, or if you are born there (whether your parents are legal or not). It is a formality. This very enlightened approach took many years to be realised and Canada has benefited tremendously, especially given the aging of the population and the introduction of new ideas and money. The same for the USA. Over the past few weeks, there has been some concern over the decision of the Band Council in Kahnawake to expel about 25 people residing there who are non-natives. This is based on a 1984 law, that require residents to have at least four Mohawk great-grandparents. This race-based membership is as a result of the Indian Act and other race-based acts that give "rights and status" and define and allocate benefits based on blood-line and race eg. they are able to travel freely across the Canada/USA border and work in the United States without a green card as long as they can prove that they have 50% aboriginal blood. It is necessary for the band council to maintain a race-based membership list in order to get the many rights, benefits and monetary entitlements from the Federal government. Space is another factor in the limited territory/ reserve.
     In the case of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, restrictions are based on blood and religion. Children born to foreigners assume the parents nationality, irrespective of how long they have lived there. If a national is married to a non-national, citizenship is possible, but not if she is a Muslim and children are granted citizenship Non-muslims are not eligible for citizenship.    
     There is now a debate is Israel on this issue. The Law of the Return allows Jews to get automatic citizenship and many have taken advantage of this especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union....Minister Lieberman is an example of this. The Netanyahu government want to pass a law denying citizenship to children born there to non citizens and to deport them. This means that these children, many of whom have lived there from birth, and who speak and write Hebrew would have to leave the country. Israel was created as a Jewish state, only for Jews and there is concern about the population (about 85% are Jews). This law, if it is passed would be harsh and cruel. These children would be uprooted from the only home they know (most of  their parents  were brought there to take the jobs of Palestinians after the "uprising", when the Palestinians who were doing the low-paying jobs were barred fro Israel). These deportations would be inhuman, and hopefully something can be done to avert them.   

     European leaders are so concerned about the economic situation in Italy, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and especially Greece, that they held an emergency meeting in Brussels yesterday , but can only come up with promises to help, because Greece has not made a formal request for aid. The euro is being battered  and the "euro zone" is facing a crisis.
     Highly indebted (used to be a term to describe the financial situations of under-developed countries, up their eyeballs in debt), countries(Portugal, Spain, Italy and Ireland), are wary of Greece's problems, fearing that it will spread to them. Pressure is being placed on Greece to implement a tough austerity program. This has resulted in widespread strikes, especially in the public sector, which is expected to bear the brunt of any cutback (  Greece is hundred of billions of euros in debt and has a budget deficit of about 13%of last year's G.D.P.. this is more than four times the EU limits). Greece has to accept EU limits if it is going to get help. At the same time THE EU cannot let the rot deepen and spread across the euro zone.
     Mere message of "solidarity" is not enough as was seen in the response of the markets, which saw the euro falling yesterday, because there was no concrete package. The Greek government has agreed to cut its deficit by four percent this year, but high unemployment, loss of confidence in the economy and social unrest  will make this very difficult. Portugal and Spain, as well as Ireland(the blush has worn off the economic bloom) and Italy (where Berlusconi is facing criminal investigation) are also highly indebted. They will have to be bailed out too.  
     The P.I.I.G.S. ( and this is not including the Eastern members like Poland and Hungary), and the entire EU ZONE are in for a tough time. Quick and concrete actions are needed, but there is only dithering. 

     " When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffer"( African proverb). There is an inevitability about the coming economic and diplomatic battle between the U.S.A. and China. Pres. Obama's decision to sell billions of dollars worth of arms to Taiwan; his decision to meet the Dallai Lama; the Google contretemps; climate change and the Chinese policy of depressing the value of the yuan are some of the more important disagreements.
     Taiwan has been a bone of contention since 1949 and China is very angry with the arms sale and sees it as a provocation. The U.S. look at Taiwan as an ally and is a guarantor of its sovereignty. This is an intractable situation and is usually handled with diplomatic "kid-gloves", but usually it rears up its head as when China holds military exercises or the U.S.(as in this case)sells arms, that China sees as a threat.
     Tibet, which China invaded in the 1950s and claims as part of China, has been an irritant to China ever since, especially because of the Dallai Lama's very visible promotion of its interests. Visiting capitals around the world and making its case. Early on, Obama had refused to meet him, but in a re-ordering of his tarnished image, he has decided to take on the "panda". China however, sees this as an intrusion in its affairs. Bravo to Obama on this one.
     Google's suddenly finding its courage, has decided to take on China on the issue of censorship and hacking. China is a totalitarian regime and free speech is anathema. It exercises total control over information(information is power), and therefore will not allow unfettered  use/access to the "net" or other source of information..twitter, face-book, you tube etc. China's technological, industrial/commercial, economic development are dependent on access to information, but only for and by the Chinese state, not for private use and/or consumption. China has to maintain a very tight control, in order to ensure that information injurious to it (civil unrest, official corruption, arrests, unemployment, rural protests and so on) are not widely known or disseminated. They are paranoid about this.
      China is moving aggressively in the area of new technology .....wind farms, solar energy etc. and tried to "shanghai" and upstage Obama at the recent climate change conference. They are quickly becoming the largest polluter in the world and refuse to join in an international approach (I guess they fear limits on what it can get away with, so no oversight). It can be said however that at the rate they are developing new energy sources, they may soon become an exporter here also.
     This brings us to the next area of contention. China ha s a very big trade imbalance with the U.S.A. It is also the banker to the U.S., holding much of America's debt. They have constantly refused to allow their currency to float, fearing(quite correctly) that this will mean the value of the yuan will go up and thus lose their edge against the dollar. China has an unfair advantage (reminiscent of America's in the good old days,when the dollar and America were "kings"), which it refuses to give up. So far no one has been willing to take them on. Obama is signaling that he wants to do so. China is the "huge growing, growling panda, and is baring its fangs and claws. This will be quite a battle and the "little guys" are going to pay a heavy price. We live in a very interesting time.Be on quard.