I remember seeing a movie based on a book, “The man without a country.” He lived on ships as no country would admit after denouncing his US citizenship.
Of course it’s not easy and was specifically made to not be easy. If there was a movement to such a thing it would be a colossal waste of time and resources and probably wouldn’t go through. But it wouldn’t be “a radical restructuring of the government, to the point that the republic would cease to exist,” which is what I was commenting on.
Sorry to go off topic but I have another question. What if I as a Nigerian at birth move to the US or Canada become citizen, renounce my birth countries citizenship and then get convicted of rape?
Can I be deported back to Nigeria since I formally renounced my Nigerian citizenship.
Keep in mind that the citizenship was not obtained by fraud since renunciation is not valid when you weren’t a legitimate citizen to begin with. Could the US government actually force Nigeria to take you back?
I believe the precedent cited above speaks to this.
Provided you were granted US citizenship on legitimate grounds, whether or not you retain citizenship of another country, and whether or not you subsequently commit a crime, the 14th Amendment applies and it appears to be
The few cases in Canada generally involve people who arrived as children or infants, and for some reason never got naturalized as Canadian citizens. There was a recent case where a Turkish fellow who was a gang member was deported back to Turkey; and a Somali who was taken to Kenya and private security forces hired to drop him in Somalia (Somaliland?) somewhere despite having no papers and the alleged Somali government refusing to take him. Like the USA, as long as you are legitimately naturalized you cannot be “Un-citizened”. The previous Harper government actually suggested they should pass the law to do this for “terrorists!” but the outcry was serious. After all, it would create two classes of citizens - those who had another citizenship and could lose their Canadian status, and those who could not. Presumably it would include people like me who have UK citizenship despite having spent all my life in Canad aand being born here.
(Fun story - I knew a fellow who was still a German, not Canadian, although he arrived in this country as a toddler. When a bunch of his college buddies decided to go to the US for the weekend, he figured it would be simpler to lie and claim to be Canadian (well before 9/11 when all they needed was a driver’s license). So he gets hauled into an interrogation room in Detroit, then gets to phone his parents and say “Guess what, mom, dad? I’m in Germany now.” Since he was not Canadian, they could not just send him back across the border, they put him on a plane to Germany.)
But back to OP - I was under the impression that flag-burning was a first-amendment protected form of expression, so all the felony laws in the country wouldn’t work anyway?
Re: the third part of the question. The US could not just say “Okay, you’re going to France (or wherever).” Other countries might have some argument with that sort of disregard for their sovereignty. Deportation is just not an option without another nation agreeing to take the person. The first option could be a possibility, I suppose.
For a while there was a dodge being used by people trying to get into Canada - whether legitimate refugees or economic migrants (YMMV). They would show the necessary passport to get on the plane, then shred it and flush it before landing in Canada, then at customs claim refugee status. First it could take years to adjudicate their claim. Then without identity proof, if Canada wanted to deport them they would have to get replacement documents from their home country. Sometimes the home country did not want to deal with them, would not believe they belonged there and refuse to accept they were citizens. (IIRC, Gypsies/Roma were some typically on the receiving end of this). Until the other country agreed to take the deportee, they could not be sent back. Some diplomatic back-and-forth was needed to resolve the situation.
Chefguy got it - regardless of whether a person has the right to remain in the US, he can’t be deported unless another state agrees to take him.
Not so. SCOTUS narrowed Afroyim in Rogers v. Bellei (also mentioned in the Afroyim Wikipedia page), holding that its reasoning did not apply to naturalized citizens. Congress may direct that certain acts (or non-acts, in Bellei’s case) result in loss of citizenship for naturalized persons. So Anthony Hopkins could lose his citizenship for burning a flag, if Congress passes the Trump Act, but Tom Cruise couldn’t.
Thanks. I didn’t read it carefully enough. I will probably be a naturalized US citizen in a couple of years, so it’ll be something I do want to be clear on, even if the possibility is remote.
I read that just the opposite -
(My bolding) - RvB appears to say simply that the law of the day required someone who was a citizen due to one parent jus sanguis had to actually reside in the USA for 5 years before age 28 to formalize that (conditional?) citizenship. They distinguish between those who claim citizenship but have never been in the country vs those born or naturalized in the country. naturalized citizens obviously (should) have met the residency requirements.
This would otherwise bring up the same arguments as were raised in Canada when Harper tried to appeal to Canadians’ baser instincts - are there two classes of citizens, those who can be stripped of their citizenship and those who cannot? My argument was that I was born and raised in Canada, but my parents’ citizenship gave me also UK citizenship. In Harper’s world, if I committed a terrorist act - go fight for ISIS, or in a more dystopian future, criticized the government - I could be shipped off to Britain and declared not a citizen of Canada - despite not having ever lived in Britain.
So there’s those two classes - those who could be stripped and shipped away, those who cannot. Where you are born would not matter. It only matters if another country agrees you are also their citizen.
(Of course, in the USA, there’s a third class, those who cannot be president).
Countries are supposed to accept their own citizens back of they’re being deported from another country. (Of course in the real world there can be disagreements about who’s a citizen.) The United States government has the option of imposing diplomatic sanctions against a country which refuses to take its people back. The main sanction is to deny visas to citizens of that country.
The point is that Congress could make such a law if they wanted to without violating the 14th Amendment, not that the law currently provides for loss of citizenship.
Okay, but the OP’s question was about “a natural citizen born in the United States”. Whole different scenario from deporting a naturalized citizen.
That’s right-Deporting a natural citizen to his “home country” would take a round trip ticket.
That’s the big question - the constitution is silent as far as I can see on whether persons born to US citizens outside the USA are citizens, and under what conditions. Hence, congress, laws, arbitrary.
The 14th explicitly says “born or naturalized” so presumably a person once naturalized has the same protection as a person born there, cannot be subject to laws removing their citizenship? As opposed to a person born and residing abroad, who has citizenship, conditionally, only because of an act of congress. Presumably congress could pass a law (but not retroactive?) removing the option of naturalization, but from what I read in the amendment, once naturalized, always a citizen unless there’s an amendment to change the 14th- equal before the law an all that.
Not if they had dual citizenship by parentage… Sorry, your paternal grandfather was British, so away you go!
Not part of the OP. We are only talking about American born American-only citizens in this situation, please.
But according to your own cite, in Rogers v. Bellei the central holding of the court was that:
Emphasis mine.
My reading of this suggests that Congress DOES have the power to make a law that sets particular residency requirements (or whatever other conditions) for a person who receives citizenship through jus sanguinis, but that Congress DOES NOT have the power to make such a law for a person born or naturalized in the United States.
You said, in your previous post:
Emphasis mine.
Now, you might be right (you’re the lawyer, after all), but that’s NOT what the Wikipedia explanation suggests to me.
The Wikipedia summary of the court’s decision seems to say that Congress CAN make certain acts result in loss of citizenship for certain persons who were NOT born or naturalized within the United States. The summary seems to suggest that if a person (like me, when i get my citizenship) DOES fall within the 14th amendment’s definition of “born or naturalized in the United States,” then the rules are different.
Assuming, of course, the person really is American-only. Some citizens may not realize they are dual citizens… thinking of Ted Cruz, although as born abroad I guess technically he does not fit the discussion. Fortunately for his kids, they are Canadians.
There was some discussion whether Trump would qualify as a dual citizen, but IIRC a foreign grandmother would not qualify him, although if it had been a foreign grandfather, might have.
But yes, a strictly American only citizen can’t be deported anywhere unless the other end agrees to take him.
His mother was Scottish.