Proposed amendments to Russia’s citizenship law aim to create parity between native-born citizens and those who obtain citizenship after territorial changes to the country. The bill, authored by a Crimean senator, proposes a change that would allow citizenship to be revoked not only for those who acquired it by choice, but also for those born as Russian citizens who later act in ways that discredit the state, undermine the armed forces, or incite extremism. The measure has been placed into the official legislative database for consideration by lawmakers.
The senator emphasized that Article 6 of both the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the citizenship law applies to all citizens, regardless of how they gained citizenship. He argued that, following the annexation of certain territories, including Crimea, the current framework creates an inconsistency: citizenship can be terminated for those who chose to obtain it, yet those born as citizens cannot be similarly deprived. The proposed rule would address this perceived inequality by extending the possibility of citizenship revocation to birthright citizens as well, under clearly defined circumstances.
Gaining attention were cases where well-known figures born in Russia have engaged in actions deemed to discredit the country, dismantle passports, insult the nation, or contribute to anti-state activities through volunteer forces. The senator noted that a large majority of Russian citizens who are born in the country could be affected by the new provisions, especially in light of the heightened patriotism observed in certain regions. He also pointed out that the Constitution guarantees equal rights, and the legislative proposal seeks to reinforce this equality across all aspects of citizenship, while acknowledging that such measures would not be applied ubiquitously.
The authors of the bill include several senators from Crimea and Sevastopol, with one supporting stance from a representative of the Luhansk People’s Republic. The proposal has been submitted to the State Duma for review and is now part of the parliamentary electronic record. In response, constitutional law experts and officials have commented that revoking citizenship by birth is not currently provided for in the Constitution, signaling a potential constitutional debate ahead. A senior official asserted that if a federal law were enacted that contravened the Constitution, it would prompt serious questions about the eligibility of the lawmakers responsible for such a policy to hold office. This warning underlines the delicate balance lawmakers must strike between national security, patriotism, and constitutional order, especially in a time of evolving geopolitical complexities.
Earlier in the year, the president signed a law concerning citizenship that includes provisions for revoking acquired citizenship for acts that discredit the armed forces or threaten national security. The new law specifies a timeline for its entry into force, with a transition period of several months before it becomes fully applicable. In the broader political discourse, observers note the ongoing tension between national sovereignty concerns and individual rights, as well as the challenge of aligning citizenship policies with evolving security priorities. The legislative process continues as proponents argue for stronger measures to preserve national integrity, while opponents caution against potential constitutional conflicts and overreach.
In related developments, discussions around dual citizenship with neighboring regions have surfaced, reflecting ongoing negotiations about rights, loyalties, and the practical implications of citizenship across territories. These conversations illustrate how citizenship policy remains a live, evolving issue within the broader framework of national governance and regional stability. The debate continues to unfold as lawmakers weigh the benefits and risks of extending or restricting citizenship in response to security concerns and political realities, all while upholding constitutional guarantees and the rule of law.