Well, not really. I kept finding contradictory links in my search, but the two posted seems to be the most credible.
Also, our current Governor general, Michaëlle Jean, was a dual Canadian/French citizen when she was chosen for the position. She renounced her French citizenship prior to being officially appointed, but I think that she could theoretically have kept it, since I don’t think there is any requirement for the Governor general of Canada to only hold Canadian citizenship (or possibly even to hold Canadian citizenship at all), and her Wikipedia article claims that even though France could have objected to the nomination, it chose not to.
I wonder if it is possible to be a citizen of the European Union without being a citizen of any of the constituent countries?
There’s no formal requirement for the Governor-General of Australia to be an Australian citizen, and many have not been (since they were British citizens).
On the other hand, the Australian Constitution requires members of Parliament not to be foreign subjects, and the High Court has ruled that British citizens are foreign subjects for this purpose. (Which is somewhat odd, since formally the Australian Constitution is part of an act of the British Parliament).
Cecil doesn’t say you can’t be a dual citizen, he says that you can’t become the citizen of another nation without losing your US citizenship.
Three of my cousins (all over 18) are UK/US dual citizens, because they were born in the UK to American parents. But if I, a US citizen, went through the trouble of becoming a UK national, I’d lose my US citizenship. There seem to be exceptions with claiming citizenship through right of return. I know you can become an Israeli citizen without losing US citizenship, and I’m pretty sure you can become an Irish citizen without losing US citizenship, too, if you qualify for right of return (I think you have to have one grandparent born in Ireland to qualify).
Side note: I also have three cousins who are US/Mexico dual citizens and when the eldest of them turned 18, he was forced by the Mexican government to pick one or the other, so he lost his US citizenship. A few months later, Mexico changed its laws to allow dual citizenship, so my cousin reapplied for American citizenship and now he’s a dual citizen again.
Just out of curiosity, does that make him a natural-born citizen or a naturalized citizen? In other words, when he turns 35 (if he isn’t already) can he run for U.S. president?
Zev Steinhardt
Apparently not. Official factsheet on EU citizenship:
Renunciations of U.S. citizenship are actually up - here’s a high-profile case: Facebook co-founder renounces U.S. citizenship - May. 11, 2012
He doesn’t say this, what he says is that applying for or gaining another nation’s citizenship is more-or-less a requirement for renouncing US citizenship (which was the question at hand).
It’s also not true that becoming the citizen of another nation automatically causes you to lose your US citizenship. Take the case of Terry Gilliam, who became a naturalized British citizen in 1968, but did not lose his US citizenship until he renounced it by choice in 2006.
For a better cite, see here (emphasis mine):
This thread I started on renouncing US citizenship when you have no other citizenship might be interesting, it has links to a blog of a guy doing just this.
BTW You can’t renounce US citizenship inside the US, you can only do it at a US consulate. What happens if you are then deported? Well I never got a good answer on that, it appears the state department will quietly reinstate your citizenship(you might have to plead you didn’t understand what you were getting into).
Check out the thread I just linked to, actually you don’t have to have another citizenship to renounce your US citizenship(the thread has links to an actual case).
I do wonder if the gentlemen in question lied to the consular official to get himself into the bind he did:dubious:
Of course you don’t technically have to possess another citizenship, but it makes the whole process a lot easier. It’s much easier to explain to the State Department that you’re a dual citizen who wants to reduce his tax liability rather than that you’re a sole US citizen who wants to make life a lot harder for himself for no good reason.
Where are you getting that from UDS? The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 provides for both the renunciation of citizenship (Section 21) and the power of the government to revoke a naturalised citizen’s citizenship (Section 19). The Act has been amended a number of times but I don’t see any amendments that substantively change those provisions.
The Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1996 provides that those who renounce US citizenship for the purpose of avoidng taxes are no longer admissable to the US.
I don’t know if there is a case where it has actually been enforced.
There was a big kerfuffle in the news a few months ago, about the IRS program kicking in that required American citizens to pay taxes, declare foreign assets, etc. A number of people who for some reason have American citizenship but are also Canadians, suddenly find that they are in violation of laws going back years, they will be subject to arrest and asset seizure, and a $10,000 fine if they visit the USA, even if they have not been there since they were a toddler (or ever). The point was that even RRSP’s (Canadian equivalent of IRA) can qualify for items needing disclosure; failure to disclose by last fall meant a $10,000 fine.
However, disclosing all this stuff now means drawing the attention of the authorities, meaning you will definitely be on the watch list and liable to arrest if you did not submit 7 years worth of tax returns (apparently, this was when there was only a few months left to file). Try finding an expert on filing back taxes who wants to do Canadian income to US taxes on short notice, assuming you could find documents rom 7 years ago.
Renouncing your citizenship now does not relieve you of the need to have filed the last 7 years.
Only the USA hounds citizens abroad so mercilessly over taxes.
That is true BUT dual or more citizens(it has become fashionable lately to claim all your child’s potential citizenships and I have been chided for not claiming German citizenship for my son) do face harassment over other issues. I know a USA/German dual citizen who had no memory of being in Germany but apparently his parents got him on some list and his family in Germany was being hounded looking for him as a mandatory army service absconder. I advised him to just forget it if he was never returning to Germany. I myself never had an issue with that , that I know of.
Those countries that belong to the Statelessness Reduction Convention don’t allow their citizens to renounce their citizenship, unless the applicant can prove that they are already a citizen of some other country or will get another citizenship in short order. Since stateless persons may cause various issues, this is a quite reasonable requirement. Currently 44 countries are parties to the convention.
Well, apart from taxing citizens abroad, the mandatory national service is the other major issue facing those living outside a country that they’re citizen of. Anyway, since last year Germany has suppressed their conscription and is not likely to reintroduce it, so that problem has passed. Additionally even a country with mandatory service may be understanding of certain situations. For example dual or multiple citizens of Finland and some other country, who are 18-30 years old males and therefore required to serve in Finnish military, but who permanently reside outside Finland, may apply for exemption on basis of dual nationality, and do not have to serve. In Finland, this is a very simple process and every year a few hundred exemptions are granted this way. Unfortunately Germany didn’t recognize such situations and allow exemptions when conscription was in effect there, as German stance on dual citizenship is much more strict.
Bumped.
Here’s more on the very serious tax consequences of revoking your U.S. citizenship: Giving up your U.S. passport? It's going to cost you
I’m not sure I have a problem with this, although I’m sure to be in a minority. It’s just a larger-scale version of the person who spends their earning years in a high-tax, high-infrastructure state with high-paying jobs and good quality of life for younger people and families, then makes a big production about moving somewhere cheaper when they retire - a place they wouldn’t have had a job much past minimum wage, with schools they wouldn’t send their dog to, much less their kids, and with no infrastructure that would have supported their lifestyle until it was nothing but sitting in the sun and fishing while the SS checks come in. (I chuckle at these because healthcare and hospitals in these states tend to be just as sucky… and THOSE they will need.)
So they stay in the US as long as it’s economically advantageous, then want to bow out of a good part of the bill for that rewarding life by moving somewhere they aren’t taxed on their investments and property… but somewhere they’d still be a fieldhand or a seamstress at their age.
No respect for this mindset, at all. Let Unca Sam shake them down on exit.
I agree as well, at least in the first year. Not too sure about after that. Seems unduly punitive/peevish.