animus wrote: What you will need to actually prove it is a Staatsangehörigkeitsausweis--.
Dear Animus, please correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm certainly not fluent in German) - but doesn't this word...
..kind of translate as : "an ID / document which ascertains your belonging
to the state" ?
Yes, it does, unless you have another definition of the word. If you define belonging in a "the state owns me" kind of way, then no. Usually we use the word "Angehöriger" to define somebody who is part of a family (father, child, spouse, etc.), political party or some other kind of group that you were born in or that you can join. To use it in context with the state makes sense, since a state is - simply speaking - just people mutually agreeing to be part of a group.
Staatsangehörigkeit is a normal word, e.g. if somebody gets french citizenship we say he has the french "Staatsangehörigkeit". Only in Germany, when you are in possession of only the normal ID, it's only assumed
that you have the German citizenship. However, everybody treats it like the real deal, so it's just a formality that doesn't affect everyday life at all. But still, legally speaking there is a whole lot wrong with Germany as a real state. Just look at the last article of Basic Law (Art. 146 Grundgesetz)
. It states that the Basic Law loses its validity on the day the Germans agree on a constitution, implying that we don't have one yet and that the Basic Law isn't one. Yet a constitution is an absolute essential requirement, without which you can't found a state.
The link I posted above, post from 26th Feb, is an interesting read that summarizes the most important issues from other works on that subject and thus gives a clear overview. I have my hands full at the moment, the whole year actually, but I think I will put the article (roughly 25 pages) on my to-translate list next year, that is if the author let's me.
edit: welcome fubarfuthark