Nothing invariable about it. When I fly into Canada, they mostly do stamp the passport, but when I drive in or take a train they never do. Perhaps if it were the kind of passport that required visiting an immigration agent (on the train, they set up in the dining car, by car it means parking and going inside) they would but otherwise no. And–so I’ve heard–if you visit Cuba and ask them not to put a stamp in your passport, they won’t. Have to try that sometime. However, in my case, I would be using money not earned in the US, so that would not violate any US law. But it would certainly raise eyebrows when I went to renew my passport.
You can’t go straight to Cuba, so that doesn’t really count.
Somewhere in the thread someone asked why the 14 years.
If you take into account historically someone going into university for and graduating as a lawyer, they would tend to be roughly 21 [an age frequently mentioned as ‘being of age’ in wills as a requirement of getting the bequest] and ready to go out and be professionals, working as clerks or lawyers, running for lesser posts or getting nominated for them in local government. 14 years is a decent amount of time to run in and learn how the government works and be groomed for offices. Well, and lose that impetuousness of youth thing, fisticuffs on the senate floor is just indignified! [not that it didn’t actually happen, I think there was also a duel fought with canes in the 1830.] Hence, 21+14=35.
You can’t post things you made up in GQ.
Sure you can. Lots of charter flights daily from Miami. A US citizen does need OFACpermission to spend money or use a US passport to enter Cuba and not be in violation of US law. Many travel via third countries without OFAC permission.
Cubans, on the other hand, are quite happy to have Americans visit and spend money. Rather than asking questions about US OFAC paperwork and potentially getting their guests in trouble, the Cubans simply don’t routinely stamp US passports.
And as far as passport stamps are concerned, my old passport got wet and the ink from several of the stamps bled. Many were unreadable and several were essentially gone. I couldn’t prove that to be the case, of course. And could not otherwise account for my location during those times.
So in either case, the government knows you left, or your passport will say so.
So it looks more like it’s a requirement to have been *legally domiciled *in the US during 14 years at some point or another (probably preferred by many to happen after adulthood so the domicile is in your own right rather than your parents’, but the Constitution doesn’t say THAT anywhere either).
Also, because Hoover never adopted the legal status of an immigrant in the UK (or Australia, or China or anywhere else) and at the end of every one of his overseas jobs he returned to the US, that would count that as evidence of *animus revertendi *(intent of return), one of the elements in determining domicile (which is NOT the same thing as primary residence). If at the same time he remained a homeowner/taxpayer/registered voter in the USA that could count as animus manendi (intent to abide) in the state where registered.
The 14 year residency looks like one of those requirements about which nobody has bothered to be nitpicky over rigidly obeying every jot and tittle because up to now every viable candidate has obviously spent most of his adult life in the US or involved with US interests, regardless of time spent in China, Mexico, Britain, Indonesia or wherever, and has been 40 or over. It becomes a Political Question for the voters to pass judgement upon, how they want those years complied with and how many above the 14 they would prefer.
Residency in (or of) the United States would be established by showing residency in any one of the 50 states (or its territories).
Diversity jurisdiction is one of the two chief ways by which the federal courts obtain subject-matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit. Diversity jurisdiction is available when no plaintiff shares with any defendant citizenship in a given state. (And the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.)
Judge Easterbrook has complained about pleadings that aver as to the residency of the parties when establishing diversity jurisdictions. But for natural persons, state citizenship and state residency basically come to the same thing.
Why do I bring this up? Well, because subject-matter jurisdiction is predicated on state citizenship (which is the same as residency for natural persons), the federal courts have developed an adequate body of law regarding how to assess whether a person is a citizen/resident of any given state. And as I mentioned above, if you show state residency, you show United States residency. I also put it to you that you cannot have free-floating United States residency without showing residency of some US state.
The requirements to be a resident of (techincally, domiciled in) state X, is (1) the factum of residency, that is, you have at some point set up your home there, and (2) the intention to remain there indefinitely/when you sojourn out of your jurisdiction of domicile, you do not mean to remain abroad indefinitely.
So, if you grew up in Florida, and acquired residency through you parents, and then leave to go to college in Illinois, your residency has not changed. You now have a temporary four-year home in Illinois, but college is not considered to be the kind of undertaking that evinces an intention to remain in a place indefinitely (i.e., permanently, while allowing that unanticipated future events might end up changing that). Likewise, a diplomat who had residency in, say, Virginia, who goes to Brussels for two years does not give up his Virginia residency.
But if you move to Oregon for a permanent job, then you will acquire Oregon residency.
This is perhaps a bit circular. But the factors that show you have established a domicile and intend to return to your state of domicile after even a lengthy absence are what you would expect:
[ul]
[li] Where is your job located? If you travel for work, where do you (and your employer) consider your home office to be?[/li][li] Do you maintain living quarters in your domicile. Have you rented it out in order to refrain from selling your home because you intend to return (See the matter of Rahm Emanuel’s eligibility to run for mayor Chicago)[/li][li] If you have several residences, which do you identify as your main one (and which have you, in the past, identified as your main one)[/li][li] If you haven’t lived in your domicile for a long time, why not? If it is for work or deployment or diplomacy, does your employer, military hierarchy, or government say it was a temporary relocation or a permanent one?[/li][li] Was it to go to college?[/li][/ul]
These are all factual questions and, by and large, not actually that difficult to prove up.