# A separate 14th Amendment question **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 6, 2026, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458 "2026-07-06T15:51:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2026, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/1 "2026-07-06T15:51:01Z")
Let’s discuss a different issue related to the 14th Amendment. The text says: _All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside._ This has been interpreted as saying that if you are born in the United States, you have a permanent claim to American citizenship. But suppose Congress enacted a law which said, _“Any person who is born in the United States but who subsequently resides in another country for a period exceeding five years and is a citizen of that other country shall be considered to have renounced their American citizenship.”_ Do you feel such a law would be constitutional? Or would it violate the 14th Amendment? The argument in support of the law would be that a person who is a citizen of another country and is living in another country is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![ParallelLines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/parallellines/32/3575_2.png) [@ParallelLines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParallelLines)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2026, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/2 "2026-07-06T16:01:13Z")
I suspect that a lot would depend on the many clauses attached to such plain language you suggest in the OP. A clause for dependent children, as they have little-to-no control over their residency. A clause for students (masters through post-docs), as programs can absolutely run past five years. A clause for due process - good faith efforts to inform and update the person in question, or to review or repeal such oversights after the five year period. A clause about the USA double dipping, because we KNOW how badly the US loves to tax income made outside the USA, even as a non-resident. If you’re paying taxes in the USA, voting by mail, etc - it’s hard to say you haven’t been acting like a citizen even if you’re not a resident. Etc. etc. etc. Basically, I think any law written by congress _in good faith_ (please note the emphasis) would be an endless mess of legislation and tracking as to be an expensive boondoggle. If it were written as a plausible _excuse_ however, that’s a question that would ultimately be answered by the SCOTUS, and our current SCOTUS is happy to toss precedent to further political goals while pushing “originalist” POVs simultaneously. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2026, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/3 "2026-07-06T16:33:57Z")
As written, I don’t think it’s even possible for a natural-born citizen to renounce their citizenship. Move away, get citizenship in another country, actively go to war against the US, doesn’t matter, the Constitution still says you’re a citizen, so you’re a citizen. Moreover, I think that this topic was clearly on the minds of the framers of the 14th Amendment, since they’d just seen a whole lot of people try (unsuccessfully, in the winners’ view) to not be Americans any more. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2026, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/4 "2026-07-06T16:59:31Z")
[An interesting read.](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C4-1-6-2/ALDE_00013176/?__cf_chl_f_tk=olSpt4M2ifKBErCxqexGZpr1I12Jmp.DNBLdrs68iR8-1783356645-1.0.1.1-T8onXwhCAyFPgf41Yn7fo38hahUbQ5HEv7XoxEqnhnU) My hot take was the same as yours, that as written nobody can ever renounce their citizenship. But as early as 1868 there was a correction, that being able to renounce your allegiance is a basic human right. There have been immigration laws (1907, 1940, 1952) that have outlined how people can be stripped of their citizenship. Some of those provisions have been found unconstitutional, but I don’t have time to dig into it. So it’s possible that the law posited by the OP would be legal, but since it doesn’t require any overt act of dis-allegiance, I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2026, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/5 "2026-07-06T17:31:59Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But suppose Congress enacted a law which said, _“Any person who is born in the United States but who subsequently resides in another country for a period exceeding five years and is a citizen of that other country shall be considered to have renounced their American citizenship.”_ The general rule is that you cannot be stripped of your (14th) citizenship without your consent (_assuming no fraud in obtaining citizenship_). I suppose in your hypo law, the question is, does the citizen consent or not by moving away for 5 years knowing what might happen. Interesting, but I doubt it. I think that hypo law would violate the 14th which grants permanent citizenship if certain conditions are met at birth. I’d think _the citizen_ would need to give very explicit consent if they want to relinquish _their_ citizenship. I think you can be stripped of your citizenship if you got it in ways outside the 14th (so not born or naturalized in the US). ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2026, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/6 "2026-07-06T17:43:55Z")
The current law regarding relinquishment of birth citizenship (as opposed to naturalization) is 8 U.S.C. § 1481. > **[8 U.S. Code § 1481 - Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized...](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481)** The entire law, as currently written, requires a rebuttable presumption of a voluntary intent to relinquish US citizenship. The burden of evidence falls on the party claiming that the person whose citizenship is at risk did, in fact, perform the act listed in the law _with the intent of relinquishing nationality_. There’s no current law that can strip a US natural citizen without proving they intended to relinquish citizenship. Any movement toward involuntary relinquishment would be novel in recent history and hard to defend in court. > **[Relinquishment of United States nationality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relinquishment_of_United_States_nationality)** > > Under United States federal law, a U.S. citizen or national may voluntarily and intentionally give up that status and become an alien with respect to the United States. Relinquishment is distinct from denaturalization, which in U.S. law refers solely to cancellation of illegally procured naturalization. 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a) explicitly lists all seven potentially expatriating acts by which a U.S. citizen can relinquish that citizenship. Renunciation of United States citizenship is a legal term enc... The reason “voluntary” is so important and “involuntary” is currently impossible is _Afroyim v. Rusk_, 1967. [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/253/](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/387/253/) The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot involuntarily strip a US citizen of citizenship (even a naturalized citizen, unless the naturalization was fraudulent). > **[Afroyim v. Rusk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk)** > > Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a man born in Poland, because he had cast a vote in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. > The Supreme Court decided that Afroyim's right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by t The Af... This new law would be up against a half century of Supreme Court jurisprudence. ---
**Author:** ![Leftpopulist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ee7513/32.png) [@Leftpopulist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leftpopulist)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2026, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/7 "2026-07-06T18:12:24Z")
WHY? What is the POINT of adding conditions to birthright citizenship? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2026, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/8 "2026-07-06T18:14:19Z")
To exclude the undesirables, of course. It’s an evil point, and one that I hope nobody here agrees with, but it’s definitely a point. ---
**Author:** ![TeroSunbear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terosunbear/32/14748_2.png) [@TeroSunbear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeroSunbear)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2026, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/9 "2026-07-06T18:41:07Z")
people do renounce citizenship. It costs you $450. A reason could be that you want to cut ties. For example, Americans are required to fill out a tax form every year. I may say 0 dollars earned in US but you are supposed to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Scoobysnax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Scoobysnax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scoobysnax)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2026, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/10 "2026-07-07T16:52:22Z")
> [@TeroSunbear](#): > > For example, Americans are required to fill out a tax form every year. I may say 0 dollars earned in US but you are supposed to do it. Unless there is a tax treaty, US Citizens are required to pay taxes on their income no matter where it is earned and where the person is living. Most western countries have tax treaties, and higher taxes, so most people do not end up owning anything to the IRS. The US government wants to know how much you made, where you have bank accounts, account balances, foreign investments, etc. It is quite an annoying process. As a Canadian/American citizen, I can’t take advantage of Canada’s Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) or Registered Education Savings Plans (RESP) because the IRS does not recognize their tax free status. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2026, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/11 "2026-07-07T17:43:42Z")
> [@TeroSunbear](#): > > A reason could be that you want to cut ties. Another reason is that many countries don’t allow you to become a citizen until you renounce citizenship in another country. As just one example, you want to become a citizen of Singapore, you have to renounce your American citizenship or you aren’t eligible. So that’s another reason to do it. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2026, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/12 "2026-07-07T18:27:36Z")
> [@Scoobysnax](#): > > As a Canadian/American citizen, I can’t take advantage of Canada’s Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) or Registered Education Savings Plans (RESP) because the IRS does not recognize their tax free status You mean you can’t as in it’s illegal, or just that you would not get the tax break from US taxes although you would from Canadian taxes and so the benefit of saving via those vehicles vs just a plain savings or brokerage account is diluted or eliminated? ---
**Author:** ![Scoobysnax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Scoobysnax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scoobysnax)\ **Post date:** [July 7, 2026, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/13 "2026-07-07T18:34:33Z")
It is not illegal, but I would have to pay taxes on the gain in the US. When calculating what you owe in the US you are able to deduct income tax paid in Canada. Therefore, if we retire in Canada, the taxes we pay on our other income would likely offset any additional US taxes from a TFSA. However, it we retired in the US, it would increase our taxes by several thousand per year. We are just going to stick with RRSP (like 401K) that are recognized on both sides of the border. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2026, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/14 "2026-07-08T00:21:40Z")
> [@gnoitall](#): > > The current law regarding relinquishment of birth citizenship (as opposed to naturalization) is 8 U.S.C. § 1481. Fascinating. From that site: **(4)** **(A)** accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any office, post, or employment under the government of a [foreign state](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-1597347259-1201680035&term_occur=999&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:III:part:III:section:1481) or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such [foreign state](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-1597347259-1201680035&term_occur=999&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:III:part:III:section:1481); So, I work for a public university in Canada, where I also hold citizenship. Is that “employment under the government of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof”? If I get a part-time job with the government-run liquor store, would that get rid of my citizenship? A bit easier than the current arduous exit process. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2026, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/15 "2026-07-08T00:58:44Z")
Only if you took the job with the stated intent to abandon your US citizenship. No one is going to retroactively decide a job you took once-upon-a-time _now_ means you want to no longer be a US national. If you go to someone to make that happen retroactively, they’ll just insist on the current arduous exit process. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2026, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/16 "2026-07-08T01:09:29Z")
Right. That law was passed well before the Afroyim case noted up thread. So you need to do an act listed in that statute with the explicit intent to relinquish your US citizen. As opposed to taking a foreign Govt job to make money or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2026, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/17 "2026-07-08T01:13:40Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But suppose Congress enacted a law which said, _“Any person who is born in the United States but who subsequently resides in another country for a period exceeding five years and is a citizen of that other country shall be considered to have renounced their American citizenship.”_ > > Do you feel such a law would be constitutional? Or would it violate the 14th Amendment? Are these five continuous years, or a total of five years? But I’m a legal realist. So it depends on the SCOTUS composition, and on how popular the law is. The Democrats are going to get hammered on the birth tourism issue. It only involves a tiny number of rich people. It is not an issue it is worth the Democrats losing a lot of votes for. I say to rewrite the Little\_Nemo law in a more detailed and restrictive manner so that only true birth tourism babies are included, and put it in the 2028 Democratic platform along with progressive ideas like universal heath care. Good law drafting is a lot of work and I cannot do that for this post. But Democrats should get out in front of this with some sort of law just to address true birth tourism. Maybe the citizenship drop would trigger at age nine if neither parent is an American and the child had spent a total of seven years – not necessarily contiguous – outside the U.S. by age nine, and the parents do not have a current asylum petition. SCOTUS would go for that. And if they didn’t, at least the Democrats could say they tried. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2026, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/18 "2026-07-08T01:30:38Z")
But you can’t constitutionally remove citizenship for birth tourism. You’re saying “Well, it’s OK to scrap the Constitution if it’s for something minor and unimportant”. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2026, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/19 "2026-07-08T01:57:34Z")
Re last post, no, I am saying that the 14th amendment is vaguely worded. For example, it doesn’t say that the jurisdiction of the United States can only be measured or recorded at birth, rather than, say, age nine. The U.S. Constitution is way too short to include all the edge cases that a good law should get into. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2026, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458/20 "2026-07-08T02:06:48Z")
It does. If you’re born in the US _and_ subject to its jurisdiction (at birth), you’re a US citizen. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-separate-14th-amendment-question/1031458.md?page=2)