It’s possible that the King of Thailand lost his citizenship but a hypothetical new monarch wouldn’t. In 1946, it was possible to lose citizenship involuntarily. In 2012, you don’t lose it (in practice at least) unless you show up at an embassy or consulate and ask for it to be taken away.
So are a lot of natural born Americans, how does that disqualify her 
Didn’t there use to be a law that said if you were entitled to American citizenship by virtue of being born here, but your parents were not American citizens and you hadn’t resided in the United States since your birth, you had to assert your claim for citizenship by a certain age (I think it was 18) or you were assumed to have renounced it by default? Being born in the United States gave you a window of opportunity to claim American citizenship but that window eventually closed.
The laws on US citizenship seem to have undergone a lot of regularisation in the last few decades. Quite a few clauses have gone, and it seems that if you are ever considered a US citizen you have to overtly intend to cease to be one. So much so that it is hard to otherwise lose it. There are only a few actions that are taken as clear intent without your actually having to voice the intent. Treason is one. Serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in a nation that is at war with the US is another. The case of monarch of the UK is really interesting because of this. Queen Elizabeth is commander in chief of the British armed forces, and the Canadian armed forces, as well as holding equivalent or very high ranks in the New Zealand and Fijian armed forces, and other nations forces as well. Clearly these are figurehead roles, but they are also critical legal roles, where the legal authority of command is finally vested. So if any of these countries were to declare war on the US, the monarch would be clearly cease to be a US citizen.
Anyway, there is an important clear point. To remain a US citizen you must remain subject to the laws of the US. An voluntary act to remove yourself from the legal jurisdiction of the US is considered to be an overt declaration that you no longer wish to be considered a US citizen, and thus may be subject to loss of citizenship. The monarch of the UK is the legal cornerstone of a constitutional monarchy, and is the point from which legal authority of the parliament to pass laws and to run the country stems. This includes the authority to declare war (perhaps on the US). The powers of the monarch include - theoretically - although not all in practice - appointment of Bishops in the Church of England, the power to appoint a Government, call and dismiss Parliament, declare war, appoint members of the House of Lords, carry out all criminal prosecutions, give medals, control all the armed forces, control police forces, pass (or refuse to pass) Acts of Parliament, appoint judges and, to pardon.
It is not possible to imagine that a citizen of another country, or who in any manner is subject to the laws of another country, or has any loyalty to another power, could occupy such a role, and thus accession to the throne would have to be considered to be an overt and clear renunciation of US citizenship. The US would consider any person exercising such powers in another country as having a role incompatible with their responsibilities as a US citizen. So, to return to the OP - yes this would have to be considered a constructive renunciation of citizenship - probably about the most overt one it is possible to conceive of.
Being born in the US makes you eligible to be a US citizen, but I thought you had to still apply for it? If the hypothetical future UK royalty was born in the US but never applies to become a US citizen then it’s academic.
I can’t see why they would apply for it, it would only cause them additional complications and extra tax payments with no benefits to them. If any monarch wants to reside in the US for any length of time, or study there, they can get a diplomatic visa so there is really no reason why they’d need US citizenship.
A person born in the USA and subject to it’s jurisdiction is a citizen. This comes from the 14th Amendment and was put in the US Constitution to nullify the Supreme Court case of “Dred Scott.”
Some argue the intent of the phrase applies solely to slavery and was not intended to be used as it now is. For example illegal immigrants or Canadians near the border who have babies in the USA as their doctors are in the USA.
You do not have to apply for it, you are a citizen by birth as long as you’re subject to US jurisdiction. An ambassador from the UK who gives birth to a child in the USA for instance, would not be subject to US jurisdiction, so that child would not be a citizen.
I would think it would be perfectly fine for a US citizen to have a title of nobility elsewhere because the US Congress has approved an amendment that would take away the citizenship of anyone accepting a foreign title of nobility.
This was passed in 1810 and has been ratified by 12 states so far
Maryland (December 25, 1810)
Kentucky (January 31, 1811)
Ohio (January 31, 1811)
Delaware (February 2, 1811)
Pennsylvania (February 6, 1811)
New Jersey (February 13, 1811)
Vermont (October 24, 1811)
Tennessee (November 21, 1811)
Georgia (November 22, 1811)
North Carolina (December 23, 1811)
Massachusetts (February 27, 1812)
New Hampshire (December 9, 1812)
So in theory this amendment still could be put into force if enough states ratify it.
It seems to me if they have to pass an amendment to take away your citizenship, and they have not done so yet, that you could have one.
What if the father is a US citizen? Couldn’t the child get derivative citizenship?
Almost certainly, Putin’s wife would be here under a diplomatic passport, because I doubt seriously that Putin would be willing to have her subject to US law. With a diplomatic passport, she could murder someone and the only legal recourse for the US would be to throw her out of the country.
So likely, no, the kid would not get US citizenship. But, if they were willing to forgo diplomatic immunity, they could try. I doubt the State Department would let her in under a regular visa that would enable the kid to be born a US citizen, however. But it’s possible.
I think you’re overemphasizing the Queen’s military role and underemphasizing her political role. While it’s symbolic, the Queen is the head of state for these countries. Political decisions are theoretically being made on her behalf. So if the United Kingdom declared war on the United States, it would be the Queen who declared war in a legal sense. And declaring war on the United States would be as clear a case for “treason” as anything I can think of.
If the kid qualifies through the US parent, the kid qualifies, period. The diplomatic parent’s status is irrelevant.
They certainly would be entitled to them, and would very likely (but not absolutely certain) have gotten here on them, rather than student visas. That’s why I acknowledge the possibility, but am inclined to assume “not a US citizen”, until I see evidence otherwise.
Isn’t there something in the Wong Kim Ark decision that says children of foreign sovereigns aren’t citizens no matter what? I don’t know how that would apply to the grandchildren or great-grandchildren of foreign sovereigns. In the case of the Thai king, would he have citizenship until his father ascended the throne?
In that paragraph I agree. That was intended to address a specific and minor clause about serving in a foreign power’s military. I simply found it amusing that, ex-officio, the Queen serves (in a sense - being commander in chief might be considered not actually serving) in a number of countries forces. The next bit I wrote was the meat, and aligns with your point.
By convention the Queen has no political role. But she has a critical legal role, and that fits the point about being the actual root of the legal authority to declare war. It is that role and the conflict of interest inherent that makes US citizenship impossible.
Sort of, it says that children born are citizens unless they are subject to any foreign power. Which again leads back to the diplomatic exception. You would have to look at each individual birth and see if that child was subject to a foreign power. Would he possess diplomatic immunity? Such as it is. If so he cannot be a citizen by being born in the USA.
I imagine you could build a situation where some family members were subject to a foreign powers and others weren’t.
This is the debate about anchor babies. Clearly the babies are Americans but the mother is not. But the current immigration system gives priority to relatives as it’s a concern to not break up families. But that is straying away from the thread.
Also remember not to confuse those getting citizenship through the 14th Amendment and those getting it by other law. You CAN have your citizenship revoked and changed if it’s given to you by legislative act. It’s nearly impossible to get it revoked if you get citizenship through the 14th Amendment.
Wouldn’t that rule out everyone who would have dual citizenship by birth?
IIRC non-US people who seek US citizenship must renounce their prior state, but it doesn’t apply the other way round…
No, I mean someone who qualifies for both citizenships simultaneously: American because born in the US (like our hypothetical king, or me) and foreign because of the citizenship of one or both parents (like our hypothetical king, or me).
I would doubt it, and if it was actually the case, it would be quickly overturned, because otherwise, due to Pedigree Collapse, your random American on the street stands a fairly good chance of having a monarch SOMEWHERE in their ancestry, and even if that monarchical title still exists, and they were, in theory, capable of inheriting it, they would be so low on the succession list that it would be a point of trivia rather than something of any real significance.
That’s not true in US law, though it may be true in the citizenship laws of other countries. For example, until 2002, an Australian citizen who became naturalised as a US citizen lost their Australian citizenship, but since 2002 such a person becomes a dual citizen unless they specifically renounce their Australian citizenship. But that was because of Australian law, not because of US law.
Not true. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 used the phrase “not subject to any foreign power.” The Supreme Court unambiguously said that those words “gave way” to the 14th amendment’s more inclusive wording “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
[QUOTE=United States Supreme Court]
By the Civil Rights Act of 1866, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed,” were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, “not subject to any foreign power,” were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the Civil Rights Act, “not subject to any foreign power,” gave way, in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to the affirmative words, “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
[/QUOTE]