Dual Citizenship--why do we allow it?

[Puzzler]

@Puzzler

Can you elaborate, please? Perhaps a cite to the relevant rule?
TIA!

Just wanted to add I don’t doubt you, just seeking more info.

[Monty]

@WonJohnSoup

You’re right, they are allowed to become non-commissioned officers. I had it mixed up in my head from the fact that an American national will LOSE their American citizenship if they serve as a com or noncom officer in ANOTHER country’s military. :smack:

Thanx for the correction.

No problem. Hope you don’t mind another one. I seem to recall that during the first Gulf War, one of the big-time news outfits interviewed at length a US citizen who just happened to be deployed there and he was still a US citizen. Said citizen was serving in the French Foreign Legion. I’ll see if I can dig up an actual news report on the individual.

Anyway, here is the US State Department’s take on such an act:

The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain U.S. citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to routine declarations of allegiance to a foreign state, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government. This administrative premise is not applicable when an individual seeks public office in a foreign state, instead, the Department of State will carefully ascertain the individual’s intent toward U.S. citizenship.

Because the Department’s administrative practice presumes that U.S. citizens employed in non-policy level positions in a foreign government do not have the requisite intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship, there are no efforts to seek out or adjudicate the citizenship of citizens who fall into this category of employment. On the other hand, because there is no administrative presumption that U.S. citizens who hold policy-level positions in foreign governments necessarily intend to retain their U.S. citizenship, efforts are made to fully adjudicate such cases to determine the individual’s intent. (Service in a country’s legislative body is considered by the Department to be a policy level position.)

Currently, I’m working in a non-policy level position with a foreign government. Both the US Embassy and the US Armed Forces are aware of that (I’m retired from the Navy). I do not face loss of my US citizenship.

[Northern_Piper]

@Puzzler

@WonJohnSoup

You’re right, they are allowed to become non-commissioned officers. I had it mixed up in my head from the fact that an American national will LOSE their American citizenship if they serve as a com or noncom officer in ANOTHER country’s military.

Can you elaborate, please? Perhaps a cite to the relevant rule?

Here you go: USC, Title 8, § 1481

§ 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

…

(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
indent such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or
(B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer;[/indent]

However, loss of citizenship is not automatic, for these or for the other actions listed in §1481(a). You have to look at §1481(b), which provides:

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.

So in essence, if the U.S. government thinks that someone has renounced their citizenship by doing one of the things listed in para. (a), and the individual says that they didn’t renonunce, the onus is on the gov’t to prove that they intended to renounce. See: Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980), which you can access from Findlaw.com if you go here and plug in the citation.

[Puzzler]

Thank you.

[Monty]

Northern Piper, check the link I provided in post #42.