Now you understand what “Hotel California” means.
Last thing I remember, I was running for the door
I had to find the passage back to the place I was before
"Relax, " said the night man, “We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave”
I’m pretty sure that there’s established international law that no nation is allowed to strip citizenship from a person if that would leave them stateless.
Of course, to what degree any given nation, especially the most powerful nation in the world, respects international law is always iffy.
Already covered, yesterday, in more detail, back in post #13.
Fun fact: I am American, my wife is an Indian national, and my kids were born here in Switzerland.
Because only one of their parents was American and they were born on foreign soil, my kids were not automatically given American citizenship. I had to prove that I was sufficiently American and had lived more than 5 years of my life in the US. Switzerland does not have jus soli, so the kids were stateless.
(We do have jus de pomme however 
)
I’m pretty sure that there is no such thing as “International Law”, just laws that some countries have agreed to for the time being, and some have not,
Another interesting fact: while the US does allow citizens of another country to take US citizenship, and thus become duals, the reverse is not universally true. A US national can only take on a second citizenship from another country if it is through marriage.
Never mind.
I don’t think that is correct. The U.S. cannot prevent another country from granting their own citizenship to a person. The best the U.S. could is refuse to recognize the second citizenship.
Okay, I’ll bite. A strict reading of INA 349(a)(1) would suggest that’s true: becoming a citizen of another nation on one’s own application would deprive a US citizen of their US citizenship.
However, I believe in part due to the Supreme Court pointing out that pesky 14th amendment, the practice seems to be that something more is required. Not only applying for and accepting citizenship of another nation, but then affirmatively renouncing one’s US citizenship on top of that.
See 22 CFR 50.40
§ 50.40 Certification of loss of U.S. nationality.
(a) Administrative presumption. In adjudicating potentially expatriating acts pursuant to INA 349(a), the Department has adopted an administrative presumption regarding certain acts and the intent to commit them. U.S. citizens who naturalize in a foreign country; take a routine oath of allegiance; or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government need not submit evidence of intent to retain U.S. nationality. In these three classes of cases, intent to retain U.S. citizenship will be presumed. A person who affirmatively asserts to a consular officer, after he or she has committed a potentially expatriating act, that it was his or her intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship will lose his or her U.S. citizenship. In other loss of nationality cases, the consular officer will ascertain whether or not there is evidence of intent to relinquish U.S. nationality.
Thanks. This is very elucidating.
My understanding had been that if the US government found out (which is harder than you would think) they could force the person to choose. I actually had a free consultation with a US immigration lawyer and they confirmed that although what I understood was correct, it is not really enforced.
The legal language you shared seems to be saying the same thing, but more clearly.
This is not true.
This is true.
Cite: Me, dual citizen, holder of two passports.
I have a PhD in international law, so I’m pretty sure it exists. It’s true that much of it is based on treaties that countries have to consent to to be bound, but that’s not the end of the story. There’s also customary international law that a country can be bound by without ever having explicitly consented to it.
Please elaborate. Above I said that I had a confirmation from a U.S. immigration attorney and in addition ASL_v2.0 cited specific legal text. What is your evidence?
I have two passports as well. I didn’t say another country wouldn’t grant citizenship, I said the US govt doesn’t like it
U.S. law does not impede its citizens’ acquisition of foreign citizenship whether by birth, descent, naturalization or other form of acquisition, by imposing requirements of permission from U.S. courts or any governmental agency. If a foreign country’s law permits parents to apply for citizenship on behalf of minor children, nothing in U.S. law impedes U.S. citizen parents from doing so.
U.S. law does not require a U.S. citizen to choose between U.S. citizenship and another (foreign) nationality (or nationalities). A U.S. citizen may naturalize in a foreign state without any risk to their U.S. citizenship.
There are all sorts of ways to get multiple citizenships, many of them without any particular effort on the part of the citizen. For instance, nearly every country has laws granting citizenship from birth, and those often overlap: John McCain, for instance, was a citizen of both the US and Panama. And then you get situations like the Kingdom of Uganda (a micro-state created by Uganda as a way of keeping their monarchy while the country as a whole became a democracy): Anyone who is physically located within the Kingdom of Uganda is considered a citizen of that nation, so long as they remain within the Kingdom.
I think that the US might require dual citizens to officially choose one or the other if the other nation and the US are at war. Typically, though, while the US discourages multiple citizenship, there’s no actual penalty for it.
FWIW, I think what I cited disagrees with you. It basically says that a US citizen can become a dual citizen and that they only lose their citizenship if they expressly renounce their US citizenship. I don’t see it as making someone choose at all. A person is very much free to say “I did not and do not intend to renounce my US citizenship,” and the state department’s position should be… “Okay.” In fact the US Citizen doesn’t have to say anything, unless they actually do want to renounce their US citizenship. This in spite of a law (which may be unconstitutional) that says loss of US citizenship should be automatic for anyone who becomes nationalized elsewhere on their own application after turning 18.
Again, absent express renunciation, merely becoming a naturalized citizen of another country, even by one’s own choice, is not enough, in spite of the plain text of the immigration and nationality act.
FWIW, this is an area of the law that seems to have developed quite a lot over the last few decades. Perhaps what your immigration lawyer told you was true when they were saying it, or at least it was true when they started practicing, but it seems no longer true today. That’s immigration law for you. Although, normally, it tends to get more draconian, not less, so this is a rare development indeed.
ETA:
The great irony of the 2008 election is that while it is true McCain was a US citizen in spite of being born in the Panama Canal Zone, at the time of his birth there was actually no law extending citizenship to him. Congress did not pass the law allowing for children in his unique situation to become citizens until a couple years after he was born. So, arguably, if anyone was not qualified for President on the basis of not being a natural born US citizen, it was him.
ETA2:
Abstract
Article II, section 1 of the Constitution provides that “No Person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President . . . .” A person must be a citizen at birth to be a natural born citizen. Senator McCain was born in the Canal Zone in 1936. Although he is now a U.S. citizen, the law in effect in 1936 did not grant him citizenship at birth. Because he was not born a citizen, he is not eligible to the office of president.
I think there’s a difference between “citizenship” and getting documentary proof of citizenship. By which I mean that they were citizens as long as you met the requirements when they were born. No one had the discretion to deny them citizenship and they didn’t need to be naturalized. You had to provide that proof to get documentation of that citizenship , just like someone born in the US is a citizen at birth even if their birth wasn’t registered and they have to provide proof to get documentation later.
I worked for a guy who was stateless for a bit. He was born in the Ukrainian part of the USSR, and was in college in the Russian part when the Soviet Union dissolved. Russia granted citizenship to anyone born in Russia. Ukraine granted citizenship to everyone in Ukraine at the time of the split. He was a man without a country.
He sought asylum in the US (which was easy for ex citizens of the USSR at the time, there was a window when they were allowed to leave, and the US considered them automatically to be refugees), and is now a US citizen.
Thanks (to you and others). It looks like I may be wrong. In fact I would be happy to be wrong.
At the moment my wife is going through a Green Card process and we have an immigration lawyer on retainer (not the same lawyer as before). I might see what she knows. Since we are paying her I might get a more complete explanation than what I got before (which was 15 years ago)
Fabelhaft!
Some Swiss supplier of apple juice used the slogan “Fabelhaft ist Apfelsaft”