How common are laws targeting holders of specific citizenships to disadvantage them?
<p>I have been under the strong impression that, globally, laws that disadvantage people on the basis of their citizenship — barring immigration/visa laws — are extremely rare. In fact, I can't recall coming across any such law before I saw <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/86397/how-to-discover-be-aware-of-changes-in-law-that-might-affect-oneself-personally">this question</a> (which states that Norway has passed a law banning Russian citizens from flying drones).</p>
<p>So, how are such laws common (except for immigration/visa laws)? Are there many examples?</p>
<p>I am primarily interested in jurisdictions where citizenship (national origin) is a protected group for the purposes of illegal discrimination (admittedly, this doesn't preclude enacting laws that make such discrimination legal under certain circumstances, like exampled by the Norwegian law).</p>
<p><strong>Update based on comments and answers:</strong></p>
<p>This question primarily concerns laws that target holders of specific citizenships — as opposed to foreigners in general. Countries that advantage its own citizens and thus disadvantage everyone who is not (e.g. for land ownership) are pretty common and not interesting. Conversely, countries that target specific citizenships seem to be rare, and that's what the question is focused on.</p>

<p>Many countries have such restrictions on land ownership.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Vietnam does not allow foreigners to own land, likewise Laos,
Cambodia (part of their constitution), and Myanmar.  Thailand has
numerous restrictions on foreigners owning land.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Tanzania allows
limited land ownership by foreigners (investment purposes only),
though technically only the President owns land. Kenya does not allow
foreign land ownership, just long-term leasing.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Mexico has a no-foreigners zone of 100 km at its borders and the sea,
and there is a similar restriction in Honduras.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Australia requires government permission for foreigners to buy land.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Greece imposes bureaucratic barriers on EU-relative citizenship for
land owning.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Sri Lanka imposes a 100% title-transfer tax on foreigners.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>There are
enough examples that it might be the usual situation, though less
common in Western countries.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/england-and-wales" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;england-and-wales&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="england-and-wales-container">england-and-wales</a></p>
<p>Although this isn't a specific example, anti-discrimination law itself is not all encompassing and does permit discrimination of protected groups in certain circumstances. As such it is not necessary to find a law which specifically disadvantages people on the basis of citizenship because that is already possible.</p>
<p>Under the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Equality Act 2010</a> for example, you must first find a provision which prohibits discrimination for your particular scenario (e.g. <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/29" rel="nofollow noreferrer">provision of services</a>, <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/39" rel="nofollow noreferrer">employment</a>, <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/85" rel="nofollow noreferrer">access to education</a>). If there is no provision that it is unlawful to discriminate for a given scenario, then it is lawful.</p>
<p>Even if a discrimination is generally unlawful for a particular scenario, the Act provides a multitude of exceptions. You can find many general exceptions in <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/14" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Part 14</a> and <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/23" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Schedule 23</a> as well as exceptions relating to specific scenarios e.g. <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Schedule 3 (provision of services)</a>, and <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/9" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Schedule 9 (employment)</a>, <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/11" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Schedule 11 (education)</a>.</p>
<p>Preventing Russian citizens from operating drones (where doing so falls within a scenario where discrimination would otherwise be prohibited) can for example be potentially justified under <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/192" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Section 192</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A person does not contravene this Act only by doing, for the purpose
of safeguarding national security, anything it is proportionate to do
for that purpose.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Many jurisdictions also permit <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action" rel="nofollow noreferrer">positive discrimination</a> which, if applied to citizenship, can be viewed as disadvantaging citizens who are not subject to the positive discrimination.</p>

discrimination citizenship nationality