It used to be, like maybe a century or more ago, that if a US citizen woman married a foreigner, she was automatically stripped of her US citizenship. Which could then lead to the woman becoming stateless, especially if she were divorced.
As crazy as that is, knowing that has really helped me to understand how antiquated notions of citizenship are, and how closely they are tied to medieval (and pre-medieval) notions of status and the idea of the “household” whereby wives (plural) and even adult children were considered subjects of a single patriarch. Except for married daughters, of course whose identity was subsumed by their husband upon marriage.
IIRC that was the logic used to deport Emma Goldman who was born in the USA, since she married a man who was not a US citizen.
UK citizenship used to be from the grandfather too. It was an interesting quandry that during the Falklands war, it was mentioned that a number of residents of the islands no longer qualified for UK citizenship (just “subjects”, like the residents of Hong Kong at the time) since they’d been gone too many generations.
Following up on the discussion about what “not recognizing dual citizenship” means, a Dutch Nobel prize-winner (physics) has been stripped of his Dutch citizenship because 13 years ago he voluntarily took out British citizenship.
Under Dutch law, voluntarily accepting a second citizenship automatically triggers loss of Dutch citizenship.
I think it’s situations like that one that make me confused about what people mean when they say “The US does not recognize dual citizenship” - if he automatically lost Dutch citizenship when he acquired British citizenship , then he was never a dual citizen to begin with, although he may not have known it. That’s not a matter of not recognizing dual citizenship, it’s a matter of not allowing it in his situation. But if “not recognizing dual citizenship” generally means not allowing citizens to acquire another citizenship or that acquiring another citizenship leads to the loss of the original citizenship, then the US does recognize dual citizenship - I can acquire another citizenship without losing my US citizenship.
But it didn’t use to work that way The USA used to have the same system as the Dutch still have. The USA gradually evolved to the current system by way of a series of court cases.
Note that you haven’t explicitly recognized the difference between “acquiring dual citizenship” and “having dual citizenship”.
A notable difference between Australia and the USA is that the USA recognizes de-naturalization by explicit statement before an American court or consulate. Australia recognizes de-naturalization only from the foreign government. So our “recognition” of foreign citizenship differs.
There are (to me) some obvious edge cases where the systems don’t work, that are either too unimportant or too politically contentious to touch, or even mention.
It’s also possible to have dual natural born citizenship. John McCain, for instance, was a natural-born citizen of both the US and Panama: US by virtue of his parents’ nationality, and Panama by virtue of his place of birth. He never had a chance to “renounce” one of them by “taking up” the other.
Nobody’s brought up Lord Conrad Black of Singsing (or was it Crossharbour?) who wanted to buy a Briish peerage. However, Canadians who want to accept British honours need the permission of the Canadian government. Considering Conrad was the publisher and voice behind the extremely right-wing National Post, which would be the print version of Fox News, and prime minister Jean Chretien was his prime target, Chretien got even by denying him permission. Consequently, Balck renounced his Candain citizenship. After being convicted, spending time in jail (and oddly enough, being pardoned by Trump) he’s still somehow living in Canada as a convicted foreign felon.
He got his Canadian citizenship back in 2023 somehow despite being a convicted felon. I didn’t think convicted felons were even allowed into Canada let alone becoming citizens.
Hey there. I’m a little reluctant to ask this because no one else has asked about it so I’m wondering if it’s a well-known initialism that I’m somehow not familiar with.
What is STTJT? I Googled it but there were no real results (although the AI part at the top said it’s “ScaphoTrapezioTrapezoid joint”). I’ve actually searched numerous times with different added terms like “citizenship”. Still nothing.
If this is a term I should know then I apologize for wasting a bit of your time.
You know, I read and re-read all the posts to look for something like that and didn’t see it. Yes it looks like he previously mentioned “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” but did not include the initialism afterward (as is normal convention when you intend to use the initialized term later) so when it appeared later I did not associate it with the term. It was rather out of the blue.
Emma Goldman was absolutely deliberately fucked over by the administration, but she was proudly born in Russia (well, Kaunas). However, she was a U.S. citizen, not that this was ultimately respected (“Today so-called aliens are deported. Tomorrow native Americans will be banished. Already some patrioteers are suggesting that native American sons to whom democracy is a sacred ideal should be exiled.”) She was deported because J. Edgar Hoover et al. did not like her too much, not because anybody cared about whom she married.
But wikipedia does suggest that her husband’s loss of citizenship was the mechanism for her loss of citizenship: they were both naturalized US citizens. He was then convicted of a crime which resulted in his naturalized citizenship being revoked. Hers was then revoked as well on the basis that her husband’s loss of US citizenship extended to her.
If someone is barred from immigrating to the US or becoming a US citizen for being convicted of a crime in Canada, they might just to remove the immigration restrictions. But don’t quote me on that. I feel like there might have been a SCOTUS case on this at some point, but not sure. And citizenship vs. deportability vs. inadmissibility have some nuanced distinctions under US immigration law that might make it hard to generalize the issue.
NPR reported that the Department of Justice directed its attorneys “to prioritize denaturalization in cases involving naturalized citizens who commit certain crimes.”
Here’s an current example of how someone can (apparently) be born stateless under US law, even without gutting the 14th amendment:
I do wonder why the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 did not seem to apply, given it sounds like he was a legal permanent resident as a child? Perhaps he was no longer in the custody of his father when the law went into effect? He had attorneys, it seems, so presumably they already went through all that…
He spent most of his life in Texas, much of it homeless and in and out of jail, he says. His parents divorced when he was too little to remember. His mother, a nurse, remarried to another man in the Army. They moved a lot, and as she and the stepfather had their own kids, Thomas says he struggled in the new family setup.
So at about about 11 years old, he went to stay with his biological father in Florida. By then, his dad was retired from an 18-year career in the U.S. military, he says. His dad died from kidney failure not long after, in 2010.
He was born in 1986 so he would have been 11 in 1997. But the father died in 2010, “not long after” Thomas went to stay with his father. I don’t know which is wrong, the year the father died or when Thomas went to live with him but I am certain no one actually meant to describe the father’s death around 13 years later as not long after.
Also, it’s not unheard of for physical custody to change informally so it’s possible that that was the reason the Child Citizenship Act didn’t apply.