Of Croatian Blood – Of Foreigner Substance


Foreigner Act and the diaspora: Of Croatian blood – of foreigner substance? Mid to late January 2017 saw readings in the Croatian parliament of evidently EU-driven proposals for amendments to the Foreigners Act 2011 of Croatia (including amendments to it prior to 2016). Foreigners Act is of exceptional importance because it contains definitions of foreigners or aliens within Croatia and many other provisions and regulations tied to entering the country, working, living, family reunion, education, and multitude of other aspects relevant to life in general. The parts of this Act that interest people of Croatian descent living in the diaspora, who do not possess for whatever reason citizenship of the Republic of Croatia, are particularly in Article 2 and specifically Clauses 1 and 2  and the wording of the relevant parts of Article 2 of the Act as it fronts up to the parliament for proposed amendments is:

“Article 2 (OLD VERSION TO BE AMENDED translated into English from source Zakon.hr )

For the purposes of this Act, the particular terms have the meanings as follows:
1. Foreigner means a person who is not a Croatian citizen.
2. Stateless person means a foreigner who is not considered as a citizen of any State under the operation of its law.

The originally submitted proposals of amendments to Foreigners Act by the Ministry of internal affairs (SEE PDF VERSION CLICK HERE) did not contain any proposed amendments that would take into consideration any special provisions for people of Croatian descent and blood living in the diaspora who do not hold the Croatian citizenship. Hence, under the old and amended proposal by the Ministry of Internal Affairs such a person remains an alien, a foreigner, a stranger… while in Croatia. Had all the internal affairs ministry’s recommendations for amendments of the Act remained devoid of any deservedly special consideration or rights of persons of Croatian descent as, say, members of Croatian expats if born abroad to Croatian emigrants or migrants themselves who had not gone through the process of acquiring citizenship of Croatia after the breakup of Yugoslavia, then this amended Act would also spell yet another disaster for the Croatian government’s constant counting on the diaspora to come and invest, to return, etc.


At first look, though, it would seem that the Parliamentary committee on Croatians living outside the Republic of Croatia, headed by HDZ’s Bozo Ljubic, have “saved the day” for Croats without Croatian citizenship not to be considered foreigners while in Croatia – but, alarmingly, the final truth may indeed turn out not to be so. That is, the Committee had on its December 2016 meeting formulated its recommendation for the amendment by which it proposes an insertion of a new Clause 3, however that same Clause 3 may end up clashing with the new Clause 1 as far as the definition of foreigner under the Act is concerned. The Committee’s proposed new Clause 3 reads:

Croatians with foreign citizenship or without citizenship are not considered foreigners in the meaning of this Act.”

In its supporting arguments for this amendment recommendation the Committee states: “Within the rights to enter, move around, residence and work, persons of Croatian nationality should be made equal to Croatian citizens because that is of demographic and economic interest for the Republic of Croatia as well as its Constitutional responsibility.”

That Constitutional responsibility spills in the Article 89 of the Croatian Parliament Procedures, which regulates the scope of work of the Committee for Croatians living outside the Republic of Croatia …”

The above recommended provision under new Article 3 is, according to the Committee, “in accord with the laws of the EU member states with which the status of the members of the indigenous (parent) people without a citizenship and foreigners intending to settle, seek residency, citizenship or simply want a work permit and stay are regulated with the receiving country.”

While this recommendation is commendable and in much – ideal, until one gets his/her citizenship in order while in Croatia, it does only cover the rights while in Croatia, not necessarily in EU. It will be interesting to see whether this recommendation will actually be voted into the amended Foreigners Act and, more importantly, whether – even if it is voted in – there will be a clash and interference with the newly formulated Clause 1 of Article 2, which under the Ministry of Internal Affairs now reads:


A foreigner is a person who is not a Croatian citizen, but has the citizenship of a member state of EEA, Swiss Confederation, citizenship of a third country or is a stateless person.


It would appear that the Parliamentary Committee’s on Croatians living outside the Republic of Croatia proposed amendment to Article 2 – adding of new Clause 3 – clashes seriously with Clause 1 of Article 2 amendment as proposed by the Ministry of Internal affairs. Unless, of course, if the Committee’s amendment is accepted and then new Clause 1 is re-worded automatically to accommodate the meaning of the new Clause 3. But then again, why would the Parliamentary Committee recommend a whole new Clause 3 if its proposal could well fit into re-defining the “foreigner” status in Clause 1 for the purposes of the Act (?). Perhaps the Committees proposed Clause 3 could be merged into Clause 1?


I’m really quite intrigued to see how the parliament will solve this apparent confusion and source of concern for many when it comes to the definition of foreigner and its relationship to Croatian nationals without sorted Croatian citizenship. If all recommended amendments go through as recommended (incompatible foreigner definitions contained in two separate recommended amendment Clauses), will for the sake of defining “foreigner” Clause 1 of Article 2 take precedence over the Committee’s Clause 3 or vice versa? Can you have a definition (of foreigner) and a counter or an incompatible definition (of foreigner) under the same Article of the same Act, or in the same Act for that matter! Which Clause, if any, will in the end define whether a Croat without Croatian citizenship is a foreigner while in Croatia under the Act if both recommendations are accepted? Will Croats of Croatian blood remain foreigners while in Croatia regardless of new amendments to Foreigners Act being ushered through the parliament as a matter of urgency?


Why didn’t the Parliamentary Committee for Croats abroad pursue a different line of recommendation that would bring closer to realisation the right of Croatian people to Croatian citizenship? Why didn’t the Parliamentary Committee recommend an amendment that would not only give Croatians without Croatian citizenship the right to be treated (without the confusion between Clauses in Article 2 regarding the definition of Foreigner) as Croatian citizens while in Croatia but also the right to receive Croatian citizenship under special conditions say after 3 months living in the country or something like this? – And then, attend to amending the Citizenship Act – a.s.a.p! As I read the proposed amendments to the Foreigners Act looks like Croats of Croatian blood without Croatian citizenship may continue to enjoy the status of losers when it comes to special rights under ethnicity for citizenship, which – by the way – several countries already practice around the world. It is a fact that multitudes never got around to sorting the paperwork for transfer from Yugoslav citizenship to the Croatian one after the breakup of Yugoslavia because the Croatian bureaucracy and laws and regulations and communist habits made it all too hard for many to get their citizenship. So, if you’re out there, of Croatian descent and would like the citizenship, do go for it, insist and persist – you will be proud in the end! Foreigner or no foreigner under the Foreigners Act! Ina Vukic


  1. Shiitake mushrooms I’m about to be a grandma any moment and a divorce’
    all at once. How crazy is this world!

  2. Vlado Lušić says:

    IN SHORT: Those who wrote the said amendments had in mind only the Croats from Bosnia & Herzegovina rather than all the Croats of the world – so much that they forgot to ask themselves the most important question WHAT IF?. Professional legislation writers ask themselves WHAT IF? while writing every article in order to avoid misunderstandings and contradictions. Croatian legislation writers are dangerously unprofessional.

    • Indeed Vlado, not much thoroughness or intentions to carry through what they say for diaspora. I read the proposals through and through and still cannot understand why the Parliamentary committee for Croats living abroad would go and think up a whole new Clause (3) when they could have achieved the same outcome by re-writing the newly proposed Clause 1 on defining foreigners. Just sad to see all this when they should be thinking of ways to give Croatian citizenship to Croats as a matter of fast track of some sorts.If they meant Croats from B & H then their proposed Clause 3 should also stipulate that…ah, so much more to do there for real progress! Cheers!

  3. I reckon to write laws one needs to be clear-headed and know the stuff, those that wrote the amendments seem to me contaminated by communist minds and blinkers at their eyes…they don’t see Croatia and Croats, they see EU and sadly even then they don’t seem to have any clue except how to confuse people so people don’t ask for rights.

    • Yes, well, Minion, I am aware that normally ordinary people find it hard to read laws but this one goes beyond that, as we can see that the Committee wanted to do something for diaspora but aren’t convincing anyone except themselves that what they’ve suggested is a good thing. Diaspora wants more! And they know it, but just won’t budge it seems to me

  4. I was looking at the vote count and something caught my eye. There was 122 votes for while only the two retards from Zivi Zid voted against it. But the other more puzzling thing is that Glasnovic’s vote was neutral (non-commital). Do you think that’s because of the ambiguity or unclarity in the proposal that could lead to the wrong result?

    • Could be Brankec not sure,I noted that also. I wait to see what the final text would be, i.e. once amendments are in, but still not at all exciting with due generosity for the diaspora without citizenship

      • Tell me about it – 3-year battle so far. But it’ll be sweet when we get it. A whole bunch of people are going to be due a “bosanski grb” from the both of us, and the few who helped us will be rewarded with flowers or chocolate. Maybe it’ll happen while you’re here and you can drop by when we turn an oinker or two on a spit! 😉

      • Sounds good, I can help with the “bosanski grb” if more hands needed – cheers

  5. I recently received my Croatian Citizenship
    in October 2017. I am 2 nd generations and
    So far, both parents Parents to early 1700s
    Came from the Isld of Hvar and the City of
    StariGrad. I found in 2014 living family still
    There … my heart and soul struggle to return
    To my home in Seattle Wa. I am amoung
    Many who still practice the traditional making
    Our foods And continue to proudly support
    “Our” Croatian Teams abroad.!! I now travel
    3 times a year to fill my need to be where my
    Famiy roots can be planted. I cry upon my arrival
    And my departure— i honor and am so proud
    To have my HRT Passport Zagreb September
    2018… Those who were born in Croatia..have been
    Thru much— i know the story from my Grandpaents
    And know how much they missed their home.
    The 1900s were hard—but our Croatian blood
    Had us feeling “Croatia’s” pain in its times of war.
    We may be a 14 hrs flt time from You—ali sve
    Boli kad Croatia boli as our hearts and blood
    Are always with you … nasa domovino ..hvala

Leave a Reply

Disclaimer, Terms and Conditions:

All content on “Croatia, the War, and the Future” blog is for informational purposes only. “Croatia, the War, and the Future” blog is not responsible for and expressly disclaims all liability for the interpretations and subsequent reactions of visitors or commenters either to this site or its associate Twitter account, @IVukic or its Facebook account. Comments on this website are the sole responsibility of their writers and the writer will take full responsibility, liability, and blame for any libel or litigation that results from something written in or as a direct result of something written in a comment. The nature of information provided on this website may be transitional and, therefore, accuracy, completeness, veracity, honesty, exactitude, factuality and politeness of comments are not guaranteed. This blog may contain hypertext links to other websites or webpages. “Croatia, the War, and the Future” does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of information on any other website or webpage. We do not endorse or accept any responsibility for any views expressed or products or services offered on outside sites, or the organisations sponsoring those sites, or the safety of linking to those sites. Comment Policy: Everyone is welcome and encouraged to voice their opinion regardless of identity, politics, ideology, religion or agreement with the subject in posts or other commentators. Personal or other criticism is acceptable as long as it is justified by facts, arguments or discussions of key issues. Comments that include profanity, offensive language and insults will be moderated.