I would like a cite for this wrt France.
According to s. 2.2 of this paper, until 1927 a French woman who married a foreign husband would lose her French nationality (and a foreign woman who married a French husband would acquire French nationality).
I think that under the Law of Return, I can claim or whatever status as an Israeli citizen. I don’t know what that would do to my US citizenship. But since I’ve never had any desire to voluntarily go to a war zone, it’s moot. Neither do I have any desire to see the 2 trees I paid to have planted there.
Do they still do that? At Sunday school they had these cards with slots you could put a dime in. When it got up to $2.00, they sent it somewhere and you got a postcard saying you had planted a tree there.
I wonder if that myth originated in the days when most young men would have military service obligations, usually beginning at about the time they turned 18. If you didn’t make a choice, you’d theoretically owe service to both the U.S. Armed Forces and the Bundeswehr, for example.
This would have been article 12 and article 19 in the Code Civil from 1804.
I dunno … was Roman Polanski a US citizen? That’s how I imagine it could happen … someone who had “earned” rather than inherited their citizenship might lose it if convicted of a serious crime, or perhaps if they falsified their citizenship documents. And then if they flee justice, they might never get notice of any proceedings to strip their citizenship.
Naturalized citizens (someone gaining status after birth) are as much citizens as native born citizens. The only crime I’ve found that can involuntary remove citizenship is treason, and generally you’re informed of this upon conviction (hence why this isn’t an example for the OP since you aren’t “unaware” of losing status).
If you falsified your documents you were never a citizen to begin with so that wouldn’t count.
Polanski was born in Paris as a French citizen and is a naturalized Polish citizen, but never a US citizen.
Although technically, she never was a US citizen and didn’t know it.
[nitpick]
Roman Polanski was indeed born in Paris (of a Polish father and a Russian-born mother), but France does not have jus soli so he had only Polish citizenship (via his father) at birth. He later became a naturalized French citizen.
[/nitpick]
Just to qualify this a bit, if you are born overseas to two American parents, you are American at birth. But if you are born overseas to one American parent and one non-American parent, then it is not automatic. The American parent has to apply for the child to be naturalised, which means going through the hoops mentioned above of proving that the parent had lived enough years in the US to have the right to pass on their citizenship.
That is what happened to me with both my kids (born in Switzerland to an Indian mother). And let me tell you, proving your periods of US residence is a major pain in the ass.
Incidentally, since Switzerland does not have jus solis, during the several months it took me to get the US passport for my kids, they were technically stateless.
With one important exception, they cannot become President of the United States. As I mentioned in my post above, although I have been American all my life, I had to apply for my kids to be American, which means they are ‘naturalised Americans’, rather than ‘natural-born Americans’, and hence cannot hold the highest office in the land.
I may be wrong, but I think the strict position is that your children were American citizens from birth. What happened was not the naturalisation of your children (an executive act making them citizens) but the recognition by the executive, on the basis of the evidence you presented, of the citizenship they had had all along. I don’t think the law provides that you can become a citizen if all these things are true; it provides that you are a citizen if all these things are true.
And, if I’m right, they can be President. Hurrah!
I believe you are correct. This is what happened when I obtained my Canadian citizenship: I held it from birth by birthright, but the Canadian government was not aware of my existence until I presented them with the documents to prove it, but I was recognized rather than naturalized.
I suspect this law was set up to make it difficult for Chinese-American women to import a man from China by marrying him - i.e. the purpose was to limit immigration of men, and conveniently eliminate the offspring from the citizenship pool… Presumably the men who drafted this law could not imagine a proper white woman marrying one of those “furriners” anyway, but if she did then they probably thought “good riddance”.
(Canada has something similar under the Indian Act. A status native woman who married a non-a status person (white or Metis) lost her treaty status, but a when a man married a non-status woman, she gained Indian treaty status. I knew people who gained Indian treaty cards when the law was corrected, because one of their grandmothers had lost status and was posthumously re-instated.)
Thanks, I clearly had that backwards. 
Hmm. That’s really not how I understood it. But I guess I will have to do some digging to see what the consulate had to say. And I am pretty sure I saw the term ‘naturalized’ somewhere…
Extremely interesting document. I learned a lot from it.
Well, IIRC (someone with more British expertise may correct here) until a few decades ago, you could be a British citizen if your grandfather or father was British, but not your mother’s side. This was mentioned in the context of the irony of the Falklands war, where some of the islanders had lived there enough generations that they no longer qualified as full British citizens.
(Semi-related rant)
I’m still pissed at the US border guards for forcibly revoking my green card about 10 years ago.
I was an American resident who went back to Canada for university. By the time I was in my second year at university in Canada, they’d used my travel patterns to determine that I was residing in Canada and only “visiting” the US when I would go back home for class breaks. No amount of pleading and explaining that I was temporarily back in Canada would dissuade them.
My green card was revoked on the spot, with the border guard getting quite personal when I protested. I got a heavy handed lecture about how people die for green cards and that I shouldn’t be treating it so flippantly by going back to Canada.
F$%& you in the earhole, border guard. You had to go out of your way to prove that I wasn’t meeting the letter of the law. Congrats, you barred a dangerously productive, chronically law-abiding resident from living in the US.
To add insult to injury, I was supposed to keep the paperwork I received when the card was revoked so that I could present it every time I entered the US. I didn’t understand this at the time and I promptly lost it. Apparently people who have had green cards revoked are a higher risk for becoming illegal immigrants. Now, when I return to the US, about 25% of the time I have to go into the office, sit for an hour, explain the situation to an a$$hole with a superiority complex, and then go on my way. My wife is American. We have Sunday dinners with her family who live 5 minutes inside the US border. FML.
(end rant)
If you google, you can find the story of the border guard in Washington state who got into a road rage incident with a Canadian in the nearby US city. Apparently he had a thing against Canadians. When the CBP tried to fire him due to the conviction, he argued he was the most diligent guard they had - his proof? He cited that he had denied entry to more Canadians than any other CBP officer.